Sitting of 9 August 1875

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Increase of the Episcopate [110], deferred.
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Foreign Jurisdiction* [284], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Land Titles and Transfer [105]; Sheriff Substitute (Scotland) [273], and passed.
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); House Occupiers Disqualification Removal [164], adjourned debate again adjourned.
Withdrawn—Sea Fisheries (Ireland)* [221].

BURNTISLAND HARBOUR BILL.
(By Order.)
BURNTISLAND HARBOUR BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Order for Consideration of Lords' Amendments read.
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he must ask the House to disagree with the Amendments of the House of Lords on this Bill. The reasons for his doing so were somewhat peculiar. The Bill had passed through the House of Commons without opposition, and when it left there, it was a perfectly innocent measure, with which no one could find any fault. After it came before Committee in the other House, certain Amendments were introduced by the promoters which would have a very serious effect on the shipping and trading interests of the county of Fife. These Amendments were introduced without Notice, and if the parties interested had been aware of such intention, the Bill would have been opposed in the House of Commons. No opportunity, however, was given them of opposing it. The first Amendment was one which imposed on the ratepayers of Burntisland the liability of making good any deficiency in the sinking fund. A Petition signed by 70 or 80 ratepayers had been sent up, in which they protested against the Amendment on the ground that, as they derived no benefit from the harbour, they ought not to be taxed for its maintenance. The next Amendment was even more objectionable still. The railway rates were fixed by an Act of Parliament in 1858; but they were so high as to be impracticable, and a new arrangement was entered into in 1872, which was made statutory in

  767
  1873, stipulating that certain rates, and none higher, should be charged. That agreement had been acted upon since that time, and the traders very seriously objected to an Amendment now introduced into the Bill, which would throw the agreement over. The traders trusted to the Town Council of Burntisland; and until quite lately the Town Council of Burntisland was perfectly firm about it. They insisted that the Bill should be withdrawn, if the railway company insisted upon upsetting that agreement; and it was only so late as the 30th of July last that the Town Council, in eon-sequence of influence brought to bear upon them, passed a resolution agreeing to withdraw their opposition. The 30th July was only the other day. The proprietors were an unorganized body, and it was impossible for them to get up an opposition on the spur of the moment to a Bill passed by a Committee of the Lords. They were unable to oppose it themselves, but they trusted to the House of Commons to refuse to sanction an Amendment so extremely unjust as that. It raised rates so much that it would prove to be a great grievance. The coal proprietors—for whom he was then speaking—had an "output" of 800,000 tons per annum; and out of that quantity 400,000 tons were shipped. Therefore, the amount that they would be taxed in respect of that Amendment would amount to many thousand pounds annually. There was another Amendment, which raised the shipping rates from 1d. to 2d., or 100 per cent; and the harbour rates on ships were raised from 4d. to 6d., or 50 per cent. The two last Amendments were not of so much importance to his constituents as the first Amendment, but he thought he had shown sufficient cause why the House should disagree with the Amendments.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the burgh which promoted the Bill was one he represented. He did not propose to go into any details. The general question appeared to be this—the burgh having gone to a very large expense in respect of the Bill, it would be in a very great difficulty if it were thrown out at the last moment. The burgh was not anxious that the Amendments should be introduced; but having been introduced, and having received the sanction of Lord Redesdale, the very experienced Chairman
  768
  of Committees in the Lords, they came to the conclusion that it was distinctly for their interest that the Bill should be allowed to pass. A very special agreement was entered into between the Town Council and the North British Railway Company in regard to the rates charged for coal and other matters; but that, he repeated, was a special agreement. As he understood the case, it came to this—that those Petitioners were not parties to the special agreement made between the Town Council and the North British Railway. They were outsiders. They were customers, no doubt, of the railway, but they were protected as all customers of other railways were protected—namely, by ordinary rules. Moreover, under the Bill they would be specially protected in that respect under the clause inserted by the House of Lords. Special provision was made that the rates should not be raised to such a degree as to injure the harbour; and, in case of a difference, a special reference was to be made to the Railway Commissioners, not only under the general law, but under the particular agreement. He ventured to think that those third parties, who were no party to the agreement, should stand exactly as the customers of any other railway would stand; he could not see that it was fair they should at the last moment interfere, with the result of throwing upon his constituents a very heavy expense.
  MR. ADAMsaid, he trusted the House would not permit the Bill to be thrown out, because of the objection of the hen. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). That would be a very unusual and a very unfair course. It had gone through all its stages, and at the last moment it was met by opposition from third parties who had no direct interest in the matter. If they appeared at all, they ought to have appeared before Lord Redesdale, and it was unfair to appear at the last moment, when it was perfectly certain the result of any opposition must be to throw the Bill out altogether, and say that they had not been sufficiently heard. It was all very well to say they did not know what was going on before Lord Redesdale; but he knew from correspondence which he had seen in the Scotch newspapers, that these facts must have been known to the gentlemen who now appeared long

  769
  before they made another move. He asked the House to consider the very injurious effect the stopping of the Bill would have on the public interests of the county of Fife. It was a great coal - producing county, with an extensive seaboard, and it had not got a single harbour in which big ships could get. If that Bill were thrown out just when they expected to get a good harbour and good ships—and he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson), instead of representing coal proprietors in the county, more probably represented some individual interests amongst those coal proprietors—the effect would be that the harbour would not be made for a couple of years after it should be, and the whole public interests would be injured to an extent which it was impossible to estimate. He trusted the House would agree to the Amendments.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he quite agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam), that it was a very unusual circumstance that the House should be engaged in discussing Amendments made in the other House of Parliament on the 9th August; but he (Mr. Raikes) would not say that appeared quite to sustain him in the position which he understood the right hon. Gentleman to take up—namely, that if the House took the course of disagreeing to proposed Amendments, the House should be responsible for the loss of the Bill. He had had the matter particularly under his own consideration while it was in the House of Commons, for there it was an unopposed Bill, and therefore it was referred to him in his capacity of Chairman of Ways and Means. It passed before him without any suggestion of Amendment, and it left the House as an unopposed Bill. Under those circumstances, he did not think that upon that House would rest the responsibility of the failure of the Bill consequent on its restoration to its original shape. The question raised by these Amendments was really an important one. The first Amendment was called Clause 9 A, which provided additional security for the formation of a sinking fund by hypothecating the revenues of a town, and giving the rates as additional security for the sinking fund. If that was an English Bill it would not be competent for the other
  770
  House of Parliament to introduce an Amendment of that sort, because it would be directly in contravention of the Borough Funds Act. He held in his hand a Petition presented to the House by upwards of 70 persons in the borough of Burntisland, in which they protested against any such burden being cast upon their rates in respect to a matter which they had had no opportunity of considering. Although the Borough Funds Act had not, he believed, been extended to Scotland, still he could not but feel that its principle must be recognized in regard to the Three Kingdoms. He thought the Amendment was an invasion of the privileges of the ratepayers, against which they had protested. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: May I be allowed to explain?] The second Amendment repealed a certain agreement between the Town Council and the railway. It was quite true that the parties who were now anxious to disagree to the Amendments did not appear before the other House of Parliament; but it was easy to explain why they did not appear. They were at one time acting with the Town Council, and believed their funds to be sufficiently protected, and if they had come before him and asked to be heard to an unopposed Bill, he, in accordance with the usual course, should have been obliged to have excluded them. He presumed that course had been followed in the other House. The parties interested, the coal proprietors, placed every confidence in the Town Council that they would reject this Amendment or withdraw it, and in that belief they remained till the 30th July. Then they were driven to this House in order to enable them to defeat the clause which they had had no opportunity of opposing. Those were the two most important Amendments. As regarded the harbour rates, he thought the Lords Committee had improved the Bill. When the Question was put, he should be prepared to support the Amendments of the Lords on that point. But having in view the evidence which he had put before the House, and having regard to uniformity of legislation on private Bills, and to the importance of maintaining the principle affirmed in the Borough Funds Act, and also having regard to the importance of not shutting out persons who were affected by a measure from an opportunity of making

  771
  themselves heard, if the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) divided the House on the first two Amendments, he (Mr. Raikes) should confess it his duty to go into the Lobby with him, leaving to the promoters of the Bill the responsibility of any further steps.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would not have appeared in opposition to the ratepayers, but the Petition had been put into his hands, and he found that it was from some of the ratepayers. He would not dispute the authority of the Chairman of Committees as to the general question affecting the particular clause.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he would adopt the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees, and disagree to the two first Amendments, but not divide on the minor ones.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, there was an Act in operation in Scotland analogous to the Borough Funds Act, known popularly as Sir William Rae's Act—the Lord Advocate at the time—and that its provisions were most stringent.
  Several Amendments agreed to; several disagreed to.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed:"—Mr. RAIKES, Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. M'LAREN, Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL, Mr. ADAM, Mr. ROWLEY HILL, and Mr. M'LAGAN:—To withdraw immediately; Three to he the quorum.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to:—To he communicated to The Lords.

  IRELAND—REFORMATORIES—BELFAST MAGISTRATES.—QUESTION.
  MR. WARDsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question standing in the name of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), respecting certain prosecutions at Belfast. [Cries of "Read!"] He wished to know, whether it was essential that he should occupy the time of the House by reading the Question. [Renewed cries of "Read!"] It was as follows:—Is it a fact that prosecutions were heard before the Belfast stipendiary magistrates on 20th June 1875, for compelling parents to contribute to the support of their children in reformatories, and that orders were made by said magistrates which were afterwards discovered (on a case being defended by a solicitor) to be nullities for want of conformity with the
  772
  simple requisites of the statute under which the magistrates had made several previous decisions; and, if it be the fact that when the cases came on before the same court on 31st July 1875, that the complainant, Sub-Inspector MacDermott, during the hearing of the cases occupied a seat on the bench, and held conversations with the magistrates, and that the stipendiary magistrates refused to hear evidence for the defence as to the inability of the poor parents to comply with the summonses issued against them, and actually made orders against the parties, who, with their witnesses, had to retire from the court unheard?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Sir, on the 19th of June several persons were summoned to the Belfast police court to show cause why they should not increase their weekly contribution towards their children's support in reformatories. The sitting magistrate, having heard evidence, made the usual orders against the parties; but one case having been defended upon a technical point—namely, short service of notice, all the cases were ordered to be struck out and fresh summonses issued. The same cases were again heard before two magistrates on the 31st of July, when, after a full investigation, including, I believe, an inquiry into the circumstances of the parents, the necessary orders were made. Sub-Inspector MacDermott, who was the nominal complainant on behalf of the public, sat on the bench, apart from the magistrates, during the hearing of these cases; but the magistrate states that he had no communication with him with regard to them.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN EXPEDITION TO MERV.—QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the rumour of a Russian expedition to Merv?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, he was not aware whether there was any truth in the rumour—because the Foreign Office had no official information on the subject.

ARMY—ADJUTANTS 0F MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUBBARD (for Mr. FRESHFIELD)asked the Secretary of State for War,

  773
  Whether it is true that a Royal Warrant has been issued, by which it is provided that Adjutants of Militia shall be eligible on retirement, and without limit as to age, for appointment as Majors in the regiment from which they shall retire; whether the effect of such a regulation will not be to interfere with the ordinary course of promotion of the Officers in the Regiment; and, if he would state what means will be taken to prevent injustice to the Officers in the Regiment if an Officer not in the Regiment may be admitted into it as Major, to the prejudice of the Officer who would otherwise succeed to the vacancy?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that there was such a Warrant as that to which the Question referred, and that the regulations were entirely in the hands of the commanding officers, who might be taken to be the best guardians of the interests of the officers of their regiments. No pressure whatever was put upon the commanding officers inference to these appointments.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, To add, if unobjectionable, to the Civil Service Estimates of 1876–77 the expenditure of 1874–5; also the items of expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund for any branch of the Public Service included in the Civil Service Estimates, so as to show the total charge for each branch under suitable heads; also the Minutes of the Treasury, naming the officers, to account for the expenditure of the several Votes, and the names and offices of these accounting officers and their responsibilities; also, to fill up, whenever necessary, the numbers receiving public money in addition to the rank or office, and in all cases of pensions, compensations, &c. to show age of party, length of service, as well as why granted?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, it would cause delay to add to the Civil Service Estimates of 1876–7 the expenditure of the previous year, which was shown in the Appropriation accounts. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman would point out any omission in the Estimates, he should be happy to have it supplied.

  REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN LOANS—THE HONDURAS REPRESENTATIVE.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in consequence of the statement contained in the Report of the Committee on Foreign Loans, any steps had been taken by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Representative of Honduras in this Country?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I have to state that the Report of the Committee of this House on Foreign Loans has only appeared within the last few days, and the evidence upon which it is based has not yet been circulated. The Secretary of State was therefore of opinion that it would be premature on his part to express any opinion on the conduct of the Representative of the Honduras Government in this country until he had had an opportunity of carefully perusing both the Report and the evidence on which that Report was founded. His noble Friend was also of opinion that it would be only just, in the event of any action being contemplated affecting the position of that gentleman, that previous to such action being taken he should have the opportunity of referring to his own Government on the matter, and of making such statement as he might think fit in his own defence.

  METROPOLIS—BOW STREET POLICE COURT.—QUESTION.
  MR. FORSYTH (for Mr. EDWARDS)asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any steps have been taken towards providing a police court in lieu of the existing court at Bow Street; whether an offer has been made by the Duke of Bedford of an eligible site on advantageous terms near the present police court; and, if so, whether such offer has been communicated by him to the Treasury, and if any action has been taken thereon?
  LORD HENRY LENNOX: Sir, I hope my hon. and learned Friend will inform the hon. Member for Weymouth that I have for some time past been taking very active steps towards providing a police court in lieu of the existing court in Bow Street. But I regret very much that I am unable at the present

  775
  time to inform the hon. Member of the decision at which I shall arrive. I hope, however, very soon to be in a position to lay before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department the details of a site which, both as to size and position, will afford adequate accommodation for the business of the central police court.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS—FELSTED SCHOOL—DISMISSAL OF THE HEAD MASTER.—QUESTION.
  MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is true, as reported in the public prints, that the Reverend William Stanford Grignon, Head Master of Felsted School, Essex, has been summarily removed from that post by the Trustees of the Felsted Charities, against the wish of the whole body of the parents of the boys, after nearly twenty years' service, during which time the number of scholars has risen from 67 to 220; whether the Bishop of Rochester, visitor of the school, sanctioned this summary dismissal without giving Mr. Grignon any opportunity whatever of being heard in his own defence; whether the Endowed Schools Commissioners have determined not to inquire into the case on the ground that Mr. Grignon, having been dismissed, was no longer an officer of an endowed school, and consequently not within their jurisdiction; and, whether the Charity Commissioners intend to comply with an application made by a large number of the parents of the scholars, and will cause an inquiry to be made forthwith into the government of the school?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I am sorry not to be able to give my hon. Friend any information on the subject of his Question on my own personal responsibility; but my hon. Friend doubtless remembers that I gave an undertaking to this House last Session that I would take no part in the business of the Charity Commission, as there would be an obvious impropriety in my assisting as a Charity Commissioner in the preparation of schemes respecting which, as Vice President, I might have to act in somewhat of a judicial capacity. I therefore know nothing of these matters until a scheme is submitted to the Privy Council for approval. I referred the
  776
  Question at once to the Charity Commission, and beg to read the reply they have sent me—
  "It is believed that Mr. Grignon was appointed to the office of Head Master of Felsted School under a scheme established by the Court of Chancery in 1851, by which the Trustees are empowered to remove the Head Master at any time with the approbation of the Bishop of the diocese. The Commissioners are informed that Mr. Grignon has been removed by the Trustees, and that the Bishop has approved of his removal, but they have no power to control or interfere with either the Trustees or the Bishop in the exercise of the authority given them by the scheme. The Commissioners have recently caused inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the School with a view to the preparation of a new scheme for its management, which is now in course of preparation."

MERCANTILE MARINE—TRANSFER OF BRITISH VESSELS TO FOREIGN FLAGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NORWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can state approximatively the number of British Vessels transferred to Foreign Flags since the 1st day of January 1873?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY, in reply, said, that the exact number of British vessels so transferred was 875.

VALUATION (METROPOLIS) ACT, 1869.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will amend "The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869," whereby overseers of parishes are permitted to deliver notices of increased assessment, requiring an appeal within 25 days, late in the evening of the 24th day, and will afford a remedy to those persons who have been unable to appeal in consequence of such late delivery?
  MR. SCLATER - BOOTH, in reply, said, he did not think the hon. and gallant Baronet was correct in stating that notices of increased assessment were by the Act permitted to be delivered until the 24th day. On the contrary, the overseers were required to give immediate notice to the parties interested. If, however, such a thing could take place as that mentioned by the hon. and gallant Baronet, he should be happy to have an opportunity of amending the Act in reference to the matter in question. He believed that as to the remedy in the meantime, anybody making an appeal under the circumstances

  777
  could do so with a very fair chance of success.

  ARMY—NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any probability that he will be able, in the coming Session, to take measures for improving the position of the non-commissioned officers of the Army?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, he thought there was every probability that, very early next Session, he should be able to do what the hon. and gallant Member wished.

  POST OFFICE—COMMUNICATION WITH ALDERNEY.—QUESTION.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been drawn to the defective state of the postal communication between Alderney and this Country; and, whether he can hold out any hope of its being remedied.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, his attention had been drawn to the subject referred to by the hon. Member, and that he would make inquiry respecting it.

MASTER AND SERVANT ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the report, in the "Newcastle Chronicle" of the 5th instant, of the case of Annie Divine, who was tried before the petty sessions at Morpeth on the previous day for "unlawfully leaving the service of her master, James Patterson, without cause or lawful excuse," on the 19th of July. She had, it is stated, agreed to serve James Patterson from the 12th May to the 12th November. In reply to the clerk the defendant admitted having left before the expiration of her term of service, but she alleged that her bed had been removed from a loft in which she had previously slept, and put into her master's room at the foot of his bed, and she felt shame to undress herself before him. The bench decided that the contract should be set aside, and that the girl should forfeit her wages, amounting to three pounds ten shillings; and if the magistrates
  778
  "had not thought that Mr. Patterson had not given decent and proper accommodation they would have made him pay more than that, but they thought the accommodation was neither decent nor correct;" and, whether he will direct that inquiries shall be made into this case, and if the statements made are correct, he will deem it his duty to express his disapproval of such a decision?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that his attention had only been drawn to the case by the Question of the hon. Member; but he had no hesitation in saying that, supposing the facts to be as stated, he should entirely disapprove of the judgment of the magistrates, because it would seem that such a total failure on the part of the master to carry out the contract ought not to be visited in any way upon the servant. At the same time, he had no power in the matter, and did not, therefore, propose to interfere. He should always be ready to institute an inquiry when it was necessary to do so; but he would suggest that hon. Members would do well to make some private inquiries as to the truth of statements in newspaper paragraphs before bringing Questions of this kind before the House.

MILITIA LAWS CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that in consequence of the abrupt termination of the Sitting on Saturday they had not been able to consider the Lords Amendments to the Militia Laws Consolidation and Amendment Bill, but he would express a hope that, although the Bill did not appear among the Orders of the Day, the House would permit the Lords Amendments to the Bill to be considered forthwith.
  Amendments considered, and agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Henry Smith.)
CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. BOORDsaid, he wished, without trespassing too long upon the time of the House, to avail himself of the privilege which was usually accorded to hon. Members, when questions involving a

  779
  grant of money for the public Service were before the House, of drawing the attention of the Government to any particular subject, and more particularly to the necessity for redressing some grievance. Representing, as he did, a constituency that contained perhaps as great a number of persons in the service of Her Majesty's Government as any other in the country, it was not surprising that he had acquired a certain degree of familiarity with the many hardships incidental to such employment. These, he was bound to say, had hitherto always received fair and impartial consideration at the hands of those Members of Her Majesty's Government to whom he had felt it to be his duty to make representations; and it was therefore with feelings of regret that he now found himself compelled to ask the indulgence of the House, whilst he briefly drew the attention of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what appeared to him to be a grievance of no ordinary magnitude. On the 24th of May last, for the purpose of trying an experiment, a 7-inch Palliser shell was being filled at the Royal Arsenal, with compressed gun cotton, by three men—Charles Young (foreman), and two assistants, Joseph Walstow and Joseph Bardon. The place selected for this—as it proved to be—exceedingly dangerous operation, was the Cap Factory, where, in a workshop, which, usually and then, was crowded with men and boys tending the machines employed in preparing the copper capsules used in the manufacture of percussion caps, the shell exploded, presumably from the enormous hydraulic pressure required to force the gun cotton into its position. The foreman. Young, was killed on the spot, Walstow survived but a few hours, and Bardon was grievously mutilated; but, by an accident of fortune, little short of a miracle—and certainly in no way due to the prudence of the person who chose such a place for the performance of the operation—none of the other workmen employed in the shop were injured. It was true that the gun cotton in question was wet, and in that condition considered safe; but it seemed to him that, in dealing with such dangerous materials, the nature of which was, by that very occurrence, shown to be yet but imperfectly understood, the greatest caution should be used, and, above all, operations involving an experimental
  780
  use of them, should be conducted at a safe distance from places where large bodies of workmen were congregated. The point in connection with this accident to which he particularly wished to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government, was the amount of the compassionate allowances awarded to the widows of the two men who were killed, and he thought hon. Members would agree with him, that they were miserably inadequate and utterly unworthy of the country. Both men were specially selected for the duty that cost them their lives, on account of their skill, experience, and trustworthiness. Young, the foreman, was 40 years of age, had been employed 20 years in the Royal Arsenal, and at the time of his death was in receipt of 57 s. per week, consequently he would have been entitled to a pension of about 16 s. per week, if he had retired the day before the accident occurred. He left a widow and seven children, to whom a gratuity of £49 and a compassionate allowance of 7s. 10 d. per week had been given. Walstow was 42 years of age, he had been 25 years in the service, his wages were 33 s. per week, and he would have been entitled to a retiring pension of 14 s. 5d. per week. He left a widow and three children, and in his case a gratuity of £40 and an allowance of 5s. per week had been granted. Thus it would be seen that these widows received less than half the amount their husbands would have been entitled to on retirement, if their characters had been less exemplary than they were; for it was on account of their excellent characters that they were chosen for employment on this dangerous experiment: and it must be remembered that no negligence on their part had ever been suggested, either at the inquest or at the official inquiry that took place immediately after the accident. To put the case in plain language, the Government had actually saved money by the death of these men—they would probably have profited by the success of the experiment, but its failure was to be dearly paid for by the men. He had no wish unduly to blame the Government, but that was practically the result of the transaction, and he repeated that it was unworthy of the country. Economy was no doubt an excellent thing—as the attribute of a statesman it ranked as a virtue—but this was not economy—it

  781
  was cruel parsimony. He had no doubt he should be told by his right hon. Friend that he was unable to give expression to the sympathy, which he was sure he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) felt, for the fatherless and the widow in whose behalf he was pleading; he would probably tell him that he was bound by rules for the making of which he was not responsible—that his hands were tied and his actions fettered; but this was an occasion when he should free himself from those ties and strike off those fetters. What a Treasury Minute had done, he presumed a Treasury Minute could undo. He might be told that the system of compassionate allowances was intended for exceptional cases, and so, no doubt, it was; but this was an exception amongst exceptions, and therefore entitled to extraordinary consideration. A soldier employed for the defence of his country must be content to carry his life in his hand—it was part of the contract of his service. A workman whose duty it was to tend heavy machinery knew that he was always exposed to a certain amount of danger—he might lose a limb or an eye or be otherwise crippled through no negligence of his own—for such cases the scale of compassionate allowances was probably sufficient, but that of which he had spoken could not be included in that category. The work on which these men were employed was unique in its character—they were required to prepare a yet untried experiment—to brave a danger unsuspected even by their superiors—they were chosen for their skill and trustworthiness proved by long service—were they then to be treated like those who merely took the ordinary risks of their calling—like those who were aware of the dangers that surrounded them, and therefore, by the exercise of care, could in great measure protect themselves? He felt sure that such a course would not commend itself to his right hon. Friend's sense of justice; and that, consequently, he would find means to relax a regulation, the operation of which he thought he had shown to be unjust, and therefore injurious to the interests of the public service.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, said, he entirely sympathized with his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord) in the feelings he had expressed, and they were largely
  782
  shared in by those who were acquainted with the facts of the case. He believed the men had borne a high character, and their death was due to no fault of their own. At the same time, no blame could be imputed to any one in connection with the accident. By what might be called the common law of the Civil Service, the widows and families of persons dying in the service were not entitled to any pension at all. The men employed were entitled, when past work, to a pension, but widows were supposed to be provided for by their husbands. It had been the habit, however, in former years, when a case like the present arose, to make a compassionate allowance of some irregular amount to the family. A natural feeling of compassion, and even of justice led to this being done. Some two years ago—shortly be-fore the present Government took office—it was thought desirable that these compassionate allowances should be put on a regular footing, and a Treasury Minute was passed in December, 1873, with the object of securing more certainty and consistency of practice. It was laid down in that Minute that in the cases in question, the widow should receive an annual pension not exceeding ten sixtieths of the husband's emoluments at the time of death; or that a pension of £12 might be given where the amount, calculated as above, fell short of that sum. There was also a provision for children. The House must recognize that it was reasonable the pension to a widow should be less than that which would be given to the man himself. If the man had been granted a higher pension for life, the widow would have found herself deprived of anything; but, in the present case, the widow would be in receipt of it for the whole of her life, unless she married again. His hon. Friend had not given quite accurately the sums to which the husbands would have been entitled. The man Young was entitled, at the time of his death, to a pension of 14 s. a-week; his widow received £20 a-year, or about 7s. or 8s. a-week. It would be extremely difficult to deal with these questions satisfactorily, if they had to consider each as exceptional. He had carefully considered the matter himself, and he had reluctantly come to the conclusion that the course pursued was the only one they could adopt.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL.
(Mr. Attorney General.)
LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER BILL.

  [Lords.] [BILL 105.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. GREGORY, in moving the insertion of a clause providing that the registered proprietor of any land entered on the register of title might, with the consent of all persons appearing by the register to be interested in such land, remove the same from the register, and that thereupon the register of title should, as respected such land, be deemed to be closed; and that when the register of title in respect of any registered land was closed there should not be entered on the register any further transfer of a further charge on such land, but there might be made on the register any entries in relation to the title already registered which might have been made if the register of such land had not been closed, and the registered title of any such land should, so far as it extended, have the same effect in all respects as if it had been continued, said, they all knew that the Bill was an experiment. The measure was calculated to operate especially in cases where property might subsequently be sub-divided, and then the parties would have to consider what the operation of the Bill would be upon them. Now, an apprehension was not unreasonably entertained that the operation of the Bill, as regarded small properties, would be vexatious and expensive; consequently, parties who might otherwise register estates for the purposes of sale, would be deterred from doing so, as purchasers for the portions of it would not be found if these portions were always to be subjected to the register. He believed that, without this clause, the Act would be, to a great extent, a dead letter. He might also add that there was a prejudice against the Bill altogether among many persons, and he was anxious to make it a workable measure, and so to increase its operation.
  MR. JACKSONseconded the Amendment. There was no one more capable of giving the House advice on the subject of conveyancing than the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Sussex, and when he came down and said, on his responsibility, that the Bill would not work without this clause, he thought that the Government would do well to accept it. The course taken by
  784
  the Government throughout the Committee suggested that they did not really want the Bill to work. When Amendments had been proposed by those very few hon. Members who were acquainted with the subject, and took an interest in it, they had been resisted, generally on the mere ground that the House of Lords had otherwise decided, and if the Government now declared to accede to the Amendments, the responsibility must rest upon them, and not upon the legal Members of the House. The operation of the Bill was entirely a matter of speculation, and it was undesirable that if it should not turn out well, there should be no escape from it.
  New Clause (Removal of land from registry of title,)—(Mr. Gregory,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the question had been considered and disposed of by the House on Saturday last, and it was rather hard that it should be brought forward again so soon. He must oppose the clause.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 81: Majority 32.
  Amendments made.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.

SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 273.]
(Mr. Raikes, The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
SHERIFFS SUBSTITUTE (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 273.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, who had a Notice upon the Paper for the rejection of the measure, said, he did not intend to offer, at that late period of the Session, any further opposition to it, though his objection remained as strong as ever. In opposing the Bill at its previous stages, he had not been actuated by any factious motives, but from this conviction—that he considered Scotch Members had good grounds for complaining of the manner in which Business relating to their country had been treated that Session. The Scotch Members, when they went back to their constituencies, would have anything but a satisfactory story to tell of the conduct

  785
  of the Government in regard to the affairs of Scotland. As regarded that particular Bill, his own opinion was that the only way to dispose of the arrears in the Sheriff's Court of Glasgow, would be to create a new Court to clear off those arrears at once. All experience showed that it was a vain and useless effort to keep up the current business of any office, and work at arrears at the same time, always supposing that the officers of the Court were able and equal to the work. If these were unfit from health, or incapable, then it was useless to attempt to conduct either the current business, or to bring up arrears. It was the duty of Government to see to the efficiency of the officers of the Lanark Court.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that having considered the Bill, he had come to the conclusion that there was the strongest possible case for passing it, by reason of the overwhelming amount of duty which now devolved upon the Sheriff substitute, and he considered no valid objection had been made out against the measure. He would, at the same time, suggest that the Government should promote one of the existing Sheriffs substitute to Glasgow at a higher salary. He also urged upon the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate to take into their consideration a reform of the Sheriffs' Courts altogether, in order to prevent the delay and expense which occurred under the existing state of things.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had to thank the Lord Advocate for having brought in the Bill, because, as far as Glasgow was concerned, it was an important measure. He hoped, however, that next Session, Scotland would have a little more consideration from the Government than it had had this year. The Scotch Members had complained that the late Government had neglected their country very much, and great things were promised on the hustings by the supporters of the present Administration, but they had not yet derived any advantage from the change. Next Session, however, he trusted that they would not be kept night after night, or rather morning after morning, waiting for Bills which were never to come on, but eventually to disappear altogether from the Orders.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that last Session a good deal of time was devoted
  786
  to Scotland, and that country had not been altogether neglected this year; because, in addition to the Entail Bill which had been passed, one of the most important English measures had been made applicable to Scotland. As regarded the whole judicial system of Scot-laud, he begged to repeat what he had said on Saturday, that at the proper time he should be prepared to consider the whole subject with the Lord Advocate.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendments made.
  Bill read the third time, and passed, with an amended Title.

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. FAWCETT, in rising to move—
  "That this House regrets that the Government has so arranged Public Business that they have postponed bringing forward the Indian Budget until within a few days of the close of the Session,"
  said, he thought he could affirm, on the part of hon. Members who objected to the Indian Budget being brought in so late, that they did so not from any feeling of personal inconvenience, arising naturally from their desire to go into the country, but because they thought that the exigencies of Public Business were of greater moment than their personal convenience. He believed it would not be difficult to show, however, that all who had the smallest experience of India well knew that connected with the postponement of the Indian Budget to the last hours of the Session, there was a question of infinitely greater importance than the personal convenience of hon. Members. From one end of India to the other the postponement of the Budget to the end of the Session was looked upon as a settled determination to treat Indian questions as if they were the most trifling questions that could be brought before the House; and they might depend upon it that persistence in that course would wound the susceptibilities of the Indian people, and scatter far and wide the seeds of discontent. He knew it was sometimes said that the less the House dealt with the affairs of

  787
  India, the better would it be both for India and for England. It was urged that it would not be well that the House should govern India when a majority of its Members confessed that they had no special knowledge of the country or its affairs. On the other hand, those who urged that we should not interfere much with Indian business ought to remember that we were dealing with things as they were, and not with things as they might be; and dealing with things as they were, no one could deny that there was a close and necessary connection between the Government of India and the House of Commons. In order to understand the peculiar nature of that connection it was necessary to remember that the Secretary of State for India had as purely political an office as the head of any English Department. While the Viceroy continued through successive Administrations, the Secretary of State for India must be sacrificed to the exigencies of English politics. That was to say, that he might be turned out of office at the very moment when he might have rendered the most essential service to India. If, therefore, India was to be presided over by one who held a political office which depended upon the fate of the Administration, and yet her affairs were not to be treated of in that House, she must suffer under the worst system of government that could be devised, as she had to bear all the disadvantages of government by Party, and reap none of the countervailing advantages. The Indian Secretary was the only one Member of the Cabinet who had particular interest in India, and upon such questions as charging Indian finance he might stand alone against the rest of the Cabinet. Lord Salisbury himself had said that in order that he might render due service to India, he required the sympathy of the English people and support in the House of Commons. He asked what chance there was of the House exercising any watchful care over Indian finance when the Budget was brought forward at a time like that, when there were neither the means nor the time for properly scrutinizing and discussing it. The Government stated that it was for want of time earlier in the Session; but when the House remembered the time that had been wasted, the hours and the days that had been thrown away on petty personal questions, on insignificant Bills that had been discussed at great
  788
  length and then quietly allowed to drop when they remembered the permissive legislation, which, when passed, amounted to no more than an abstract Resolution, and had no binding force in law, which had occupied so much time—he, for one, could not accept the plea of want of time. He maintained that if the Indian Budget was to form part of the official programme of the Government it ought to be brought forward at a period of the Session when there would be a reasonable opportunity for full discussion and consideration. Did the 9th of August, after the Appropriation Bill had been read a third time, meet these requirements? Why, the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies (the Earl of Carnarvon) last week, in reply to some questions raised as to the treatment of Coolies imported into the Mauritius, said it was too late to deal with that question this Session. Well, if it was too late last week to consider so comparatively small a matter, was it not much too late a week afterwards to discuss the financial Budget of our great Eastern Empire—an Empire the interests of which were most closely bound up with those of England? His opinion was that India had a higher claim upon their consideration, and that her Budget ought to be treated in a very different way. It was impossible that any injury could be done to India without that injury vibrating on English commerce and English homes. That was, in fact, shown at the present time in the fact that in the manufacturing districts numerous mills were closed, hundreds of factory workmen were thrown out of employment, and all because trade was bad in India. The Chambers of Commerce in Lancashire had almost unanimously resolved to ask the Government to give up the import duty upon English cotton goods as one means of improving the Indian market. Lord Salisbury, when he visited Manchester last year, seemed to agree with that proposal, but he said he could not spare the £800,000 a-year which the duties brought into the Revenue. That might or might not be the case; but whichever way it was the remission of those duties and the abandonment of the duty upon salt, which amounted to about the same sum, would confer, it was believed, very great benefit upon the people of India, and he thought that if the Government and the Members of that House gave

  789
  due time and vigilance to the subject, they would be amply rewarded by the discovery of the means to abolish both these duties. At all events, the import duties might be taken off, if the House were allowed to exercise watchful care over Indian finance. Apart from that, he had another complaint to make against the Government with respect to its treatment of the Indian Budget. Not only had that Budget been postponed, but the Government had shown a disposition to make use of the House of Commons where Indian money was to be expended, and never to invoke the power of the House of Commons in a case where there was a chance of Indian money being saved. That was especially the case with respect to the constant increase of the Home Charges for the Government of India. He found that within the last three years these Charges had increased 33 per cent; within the last 20 years they had increased more than 100 per cent. That was out of the money of the people of India—one of the poorest people in the world—and it was spent in this country in the payment of salaries, the costly personnel of the Secretary of State, the purchase of stores, and in numerous other ways, over which neither the people of India nor hon. Members had the slightest control or supervision. If those various sources of expenditure came under the searching scrutiny of that House a rich harvest of savings might be reaped. Two years ago a Committee on Indian finance was appointed. Evidence upon a great number of subjects was taken, but at the end of the Session the Committee had only entered, as it were, upon the threshold of their inquiry; their investigations were, as might be expected, partial and incomplete, and in their Report they strongly recommended the re-appointment of the Committee in the following year. Not the slightest notice was taken of that recommendation. But what was done? A Committee was appointed to inquire and report upon the compensation to certain English officers. He did not say those officers were not entitled to it—he believed they were—but what he said was, that that mode of appointing Committees and disregarding their; recommendations ought not to be made a precedent in future. That Committee felt strongly that the powers of the House of Commons had been abused by its appointment, and passed a Resolution
  790
  that the adoption of such a precedent would seriously weaken the responsibility of the Executive Government, and that their appointment Would strengthen the impression which he had before referred to, that the House of Commons was seldom appealed to where Indian money was to be saved, but that its power was frequently invoked where Indian money was to be expended. This appeared so from the fact that although the Government said they had not had time to bring in the Indian Budget earlier this Session, they had had time to introduce two Bills to give pensions to certain officials out of the Revenues of India. If the House of Commons was to be apparently primarily responsible for India, time and means ought to be given to them to deal with the subject properly. The Government had been warned on the matter, not only in that House, but out of it. Many Chambers of Commerce had passed the strongest resolutions, calling upon the Government to introduce the Indian Budget at an earlier period. The Government had also been warned by repeated Questions within the House itself. On the 13th of May the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. M'Arthur) put a Question on the subject. The Under Secretary for India replied that it was the intention of the Government to bring in the Indian Budget much earlier than usual. How had the Government fulfilled that promise? By bringing it in at a later period of the Session than had over been the case before. On the 8th of July the hon. Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley) again asked when the Indian Budget would be taken. The Under Secretary for India said, he could not then give a satisfactory reply, but he hoped to be able to name an early day. He added that he was anxious to bring it on, because the Budget had been brought on at Calcutta at an unusually early period, and the accounts had been received from India in May. The authorities in India had, in fact, given themselves a great deal of trouble in order to enable the Indian Budget to be brought before the House of Commons in good time, and now they would find that all their labour had been cast contemptuously aside. Later in the Session, on the 20th July, the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) again interrogated the Government. The Under Secretary for India this time replied that

  791
  he could not name the day, but he hoped to announce the day in good time, so that hon. Members might make their arrangements. On the Thursday on which the Prime Minister abandoned the Merchant Shipping Bill he sketched the programme of the Business of the Session, but did not refer to the Indian Budget. The hon. Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley) again asked when it would be taken. Far from expressing any regret, the Prime Minister replied—
  "I do not at present know—but I have no doubt the programme I have submitted will leave my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) an opportunity for the Indian Budget some night before the close of the Session."—[3 Hansard, ccxxv. 1822.]
  Yes, it had been brought forward at some time. It was the Fifth Order of the Day on the 9th of August, and stood after the third reading of the Appropriation Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, in his speech on the visit of the Prince of Wales to India, dwelt upon the importance of showing courtesy and kindness to the Natives of India. This postponement of the Indian Budget would, however, be interpreted as indicating a settled resolution not to give to Indian affairs the attention they deserved. In former times excuses had been made, on the ground that the Indian accounts were not received until late in the year. But this year the accounts at Calcutta were made up by the end of May, and all the reward the officials of the Calcutta Government got for extra work, zeal, and a desire to forward the public interest was to see the Budget brought in later than ever it was before. Such conduct was calculated to produce unfavourable feeling and deep dissatisfaction in India. Much had been said about the growing disloyalty of the Native Indian Press; and an officer of experience, referring to the enthusiasm with which a seditious play had been received, said that India was becoming, metaphorically speaking, a hotter place than it ever was before. The House should not be a party to a system which threw upon it responsibility in the eyes of the people of India, without any real power. They ought to dispel the idea that the English Parliament, which was responsible for the Indian Budget, cared nothing about the matter, but treated it as so trivial and insignificant as needed only the last few
  792
  minutes of a worn-out Session. If it was not intended that the subject should be treated with proper consideration, it would be far better never to produce a Budget at all; but if the question was dealt with in a proper way, there was a strong desire on the part of the people of India to be connected with Parliament, and nothing would cause greater regret than that it should cease. The continued intervention of Parliament in Indian affairs would be warmly welcomed; and he, therefore, in moving the Resolution which he had placed on the Paper, appealed to the House earnestly, and with some confidence, to show by its vote that it neither sanctioned nor agreed to the proceedings of the Government, and that it regarded the postponement of the Indian Budget to the close of the Session as an act which would neither promote the interests of England, nor reflect credit upon that House.
  SIR THOMAS BAZLEY, in seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney, said, he must express his regret at the indifference which prevailed in the House of Commons on the subject of Indian affairs and interests. Such indifference was likely to act injuriously both with regard to the interests of that country and the industry of England. Its inhabitants numbered 240,000,000; and although, at present, mutually dependent with those of England, they were making great progress towards independence. Therefore, while he was not disposed to blame Her Majesty's Government for the course which, in many respects, they had adopted, they were, he thought, open to censure for their procrastination in bringing forward the Indian Budget. It was gratifying to think of the happy termination of the Indian Famine, and he gave the Government praise for having continued in their places the officials whom they found in office when they came into power. The Governor General had especially rendered eminent services to the Indian Empire at a most trying period. He also gave the Government credit for having obtained a Vote of £10,000,000 towards mitigating the sufferings of the people of India in that sad visitation. Of the £10,000,000, it appeared that only £6,000,000 had been expended; and that being so, would it not be well to expend the remaining £4,000,000 on public works in India? They knew that

  793
  Sir Arthur Cotton had devoted much attention to the question of irrigation of the soil of India, and that great advantage would result to the population of that country if the work of irrigation were extensively carried out. The people of India, though having great difficulties to contend with, were making great progress; but what they wanted most were roads and facilities of communication to exchange their products, and draw out the great resources of their country. With respect to means of communication, there was great supineness; and he might state that while America had 100,000 miles of railway communication, and England 20,000, in the vast Empire of India they had only 6,000 miles. That was a subject deserving the consideration of the Parliament and people of this country. A distinguished authority had said that the famine in India had left a lesson suggestive of the necessity of improvements in the nature of public works in that country, which, in their operation, might avert future famine; and here he (Sir Thomas Bazley) might say that an outlay of £20,000,000 on public works in that country would be a wise investment. Looking at the progress of the mechanical improvements of the age, of which India was deprived, it became the interest of this country to extend those improvements to their fellow-subjects in India, and to be careful that they did not, by neglect, let that great country slip away from them. He hoped the House would mark its disapproval of the delay which had occurred; and thus show to the people of India that there existed a feeling of sympathy for the great interests and welfare of India on the one hand, and of our own commerce on the other.
  Amendment proposed.
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House regrets that the Government have so arranged public business that they have postponed bringing forward the Indian Budget until within a few days of the close of the Session,"—(Mr. Faweett,)
  —instead thereof.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he would take the liberty of suggesting deferentially to hon. Gentlemen that if they objected to the Indian Budget
  794
  being brought forward at so late a period of the Session, they would scarcely be consistent in delaying it still longer. Moreover, if the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) were adopted, it might be that he would not be able to bring forward the Indian Budget at all. He did not propose then to follow the remarks of the hon. Member, but to re-servo what he had to say upon them until the House was in Committee, because nothing was more inconvenient than to discuss Indian finance generally before the Statement was made on which the discussion should take place. The hon. Member had not been fair to the Government in charging it with mismanagement, muddle, incapacity, and inefficiency in the conduct of Public Business. The hon. Gentleman should remember that certain persons in Opposition had studiously opposed every Government measure, which had delayed the Business of the Session. [Mr. EAWCETT denied that he had spoken against or opposed all the Government measures.] If not every measure, the hon. Member had opposed a great many; but if hon. Members seriously wished to have the Indian Financial Statement brought on at an earlier period of the Session, they could materially assist its being done not by unduly curtailing their remarks upon various subjects, but by condensing their observations, and so allow the Government to get on with their Business. The Indian accounts had been, at his request, forwarded at an earlier period than usual this year, and that he was most anxious to bring forward the Budget before the end of May; but that was rendered impossible by the long discussions which arose before and after Easter on Bills which it was necessary to advance in order to send them to the other House. If the Indian Financial Statement was not made before the first week in June, it was very difficult to spare a day during the months of June and July, as all the time at the disposal of the Government was occupied by Bills which it was necessary to send up to the House of Lords, or which had come down from that House. The Government were anxious to introduce the Indian Budget as early as possible, and last year he was authorized to state that it was their wish to do so, and he was

  795
  sorry he had not been able to succeed in carrying out that intention. The hon. Member for Hackney was a little inconsistent when he charged the Government with a settled determination to ignore all Indian matters, because they had not been able to realize their intention of bringing the Budget forward at an earlier period. The hon. Gentleman had criticized the appointment of the Select Committee to which he had referred, but did he remember that he supported the Motion for its appointment in 1870, which was carried against the Government of the day by a majority of 1 only? Under those circumstances it was not fair of the hon. Member to blame the Government for appointing a Committee which he himself had been the chief means of inducing the House of Commons to press for. The hon. Member had also blamed the Government for increasing the charges upon the Indian Revenues by bringing in a Bill to throw upon them the pension of the Auditor; but the fact was, that whereas formerly the Secretary of State had power to give the Auditor such a pension as he thought fit, under the Bill the amount of the pension would be fixed. He trusted that, after the explanation he had given, the hon. Member would allow the Business of the evening to proceed without further delay. He admitted readily enough that it would be much better if the Indian Budget could be laid before the House earlier in the Session, but owing to the press of Public Business this Session it had been found impossible to bring it forward at an earlier date. The mere fact of bringing on the Financial Statement so late in the Session did not embarrass Indian finance, and he doubted if one in a thousand in India knew there was such a thing as a Financial Statement in the House of Commons. Except on one occasion the Financial Statement had not been made during the last four years before August, and therefore if it had been so detrimental to India to discuss it in August, as some hon. Gentlemen had said, the condition of Indian finance would have deteriorated; but, on the contrary, Indian finance and Indian credit had never occupied a more favourable position than they did at present. He should, however, in future do his best to secure an opportunity for bringing forward the
  796
  Indian Budget at an earlier period of the Session.
  MR. A. M'ARTHUR, in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney, said, he hoped the House would never abdicate its right or ignore its responsibility to look very narrowly into the principles of legislation affecting India, and examine closely the Financial Statements that were presented to them. There was great reason to complain of the delay that had arisen in bringing forward the Indian Budget this year. The hon. Member was about to refer to matters of detail with regard to the establishment of an Indian Museum, when—
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERrose to Order, and wished to know whether it was competent to the hon. Member to enter upon such a subject at that moment?
  MR. SPEAKER: The original question before the House was, that this House do resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Financial Statement of the Government on the East India Revenue Accounts, since which the hon. Member for Hackney has moved an Amendment with reference to the time when that statement should be made. Although I cannot say that the hon. Member for Leicester is out of Order in his remarks, I submit that the more convenient course would be to discuss the Amendment immediately before the House, and to reserve for the Committee the consideration in detail of the Financial Statement.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he felt great regret that he was unable to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney. In one respect, it would no doubt be more convenient to have the Budget brought forward in the middle of the Session, but that course would be very unpopular with the great majority of hon. Members. ["No, no!"] That opinion had been forced upon him by a great deal of consideration which he had given to the subject. If this matter was not brought forward in the middle of the Session, it must be brought forward at the end, or very early at the commencement. Yielding to pressure, the late Government on one occasion tried the experiment of bringing the Budget forward in February. That caused much inconvenience in India, and also at the India

  797
  Office. And what was the result? Not a single person was present in the House who would not have been present if it had been brought forward in August. The amount of special interest on the part of the House in Indian matters was not very great, and the amount of it was fixed. It could not be increased or lessened by the time of the Session at which the Budget was brought forward. That being so, although personally he would like to see a change in this respect in Parliamentary procedure, he thought it was a great pity that year after year so much was said on the subject. It seemed to him not only impolitic, but almost mischievous, for the hon. Member, or any person speaking with the authority which a seat in that House gave him, to speak of the postponement of the Indian Budget to the end of the Session as anything like an insult to the people of India. That, he humbly submitted, was a most unfortunate form of expression. The truth of the matter was simply this—The postponement of the Indian Budget was only a necessary detail of English Parliamentary proceedings, and he did not believe that any living creature in the Indian Peninsula would ever have attached any importance to it if it had not been for the manner in which the subject had been constantly raised in the House. It would be better to bring it forward in the month of June, but if it could not be conveniently brought forward in June, then let it be brought forward in August.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 90; Noes 65: Majority 35.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Matter considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in moving a Resolution relating to the revenue Accounts of India for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1874, said, that the Accounts and Estimates connected with the Revenue and Expenditure of the Indian Government which would come under the consideration of the Committee that evening embraced
  798
  the Actual Accounts for the year 1873–4, the Regular Estimate of 1874–5, and the Budget Estimate of 1875–6. Indian accounts were published in such a shape as to show not only the ordinary, but also the extraordinary expenditure. Their form of account differed from that adopted by any great commercial company, inasmuch as it debited against the annual Revenue, Expenditure which ought more properly to be placed against the Capital account. He proposed, therefore, in considering the Estimates and Accounts of Revenue and Expenditure, first to exclude the expenditure for Public Works Extraordinary, and then to take that expenditure by itself—an arrangement which would conduce to a clearer understanding of the state of the Indian finances. In doing so, he would take credit on the part of the Government of India for the safety of their Estimates of Revenue, which was very clearly shown by the different stages through which the Estimates and accounts of the Indian Government passed for not only did the regular Estimate of Revenue show in this, as in preceding years, a large gain upon the Budget Estimate, but we might, in addition, confidently anticipate that the full increase of the Revenue would not be shown until the Regular Estimate had passed into the last stage of Actual Accounts.
  He would first give the Committee the Actual figures for 1873–4, and would compare them with the Regular Estimate of 1873–4.
  It was estimated last year that the Revenue of the year would amount to £49,478,795, and the Expenditure to £51,531,408, showing a deficit of ordinary Revenue over ordinary Expenditure of £2,052,613. The Actual Accounts showed an increase of Revenue over the Regular Estimate of £119,458, and a decrease of expenditure of £125,487, thus making a gain of £244,945. The deficit was, therefore, reduced from £2,052,613 to £1,807,668. Comparing those figures with the Actual figures of the preceding year, they arrived at the following result:—that there was a decrease of Revenue of £621,000, which was accounted for by the abolition of the income tax in that year. The Land and Opium Revenue of 1872–3 were exceptionally high; but the other chief heads of receipt showed a small

  799
  but satisfactory increase. The Actual figures of 1873–4 showed that the Famine expenditure was £3,864,673, while the total increase of expenditure, including the Famine expenditure, was £2,952,104. If they deducted, therefore, the exceptional Famine expenditure from the ordinary expenditure of the year, there was a decrease of ordinary expenditure of £912,569. Not including the Public "Works Extraordinary or the Famine Expenditure, they found that the ordinary Revenue this year showed a surplus of £2,057,005 over the ordinary expenditure.
  The Budget Estimate of last year had now become the Regular Estimate of this year, and he would now compare the Budget Estimate for 1874–5 with the Regular Estimate for 1874–5. The Budget Estimate of Revenue was £48,984,000. The Regular Estimate was £50,070,410, showing an increase of £1,086,410. The Budget Estimate of Expenditure was £50,372,000, and the Regular Estimate of expenditure was £50,564,000, showing an increase of £192,000. But that increase was almost entirely due to the construction of the narrow gauge railway to Tirhoot, which cost £185,000. The Regular Estimate, therefore, was £894,000 better than the Budget Estimate of last year, and the deficit of £1,388,000 was reduced to £494,000. But he was happy to say he had that day received a telegram from the Viceroy, giving a very good account of the prospects of the year, and expressing a hope that the deficit, first estimated at £1,388,000, and now reduced to £494,000, would ultimately grow into a surplus. That was all the more satisfactory, inasmuch as the Famine had caused a falling off of £320,700 in the land revenue, while there had also been a decrease of £96,000 in the Customs.
  The other items of Revenue exhibited a satisfactory increase, but the increase which would most interest the Committee was that derived from the salt revenue. Last year the Government of India made an experiment by the abolition of the preventive line in certain districts. It was estimated that that would entail a loss of £100,000 to the Revenue, but the actual loss had been only £40,000. But so satisfactory had been the growth of the salt revenue in other parts of India that there had been
  800
  an increase of £109,000 over the Estimate of last year, while there had been also a decrease in the working expenses of £11,000, making the total increase on the salt revenue £120,000. The sliding scale, which, as he had explained last year, it was necessary to introduce in the districts where the preventive line was abolished, had worked well. There had been a considerable reduction of the salt duties in certain districts, and the whole of that reduction had gone into the pockets of the people. The railways were cheapening salt and extending its consumption, and he was sanguine enough to believe that in a few years they would be able to abolish the whole of the preventive line, and thus to place the salt revenue on a more equable footing.
  The surplus shown by the Regular Estimate, if they excluded the Famine expenditure, amounted to £1,945,647. But the second portion of the Famine expenditure had to be borne in this financial year, and that entailed an expenditure amounting to £2,440,136. And here he might observe that it was a matter of congratulation that the happiest results had attended the exertions of Lord Northbrook, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Campbell), and Sir Richard Temple to save the lives of the people from starvation. A contrast had been drawn, which was not to be wondered at, between the Famine expenditure in Bengal and that in the North-West Provinces. He could explain in a few words how the expenditure in the former case was so much heavier than in the latter. Last year, in bringing in the Bill to raise money for the Famine, he stated that the Government of India felt serious anxiety concerning one part of Bengal alone—namely, the part situated between the Ganges and Nepaul, where the population was very dense, and there the means of communication were very deficient. The districts were under another disadvantage, for, in ordinary years, so far from importing food, they exported large quantities of rice and grain. Around these famine districts was an outer fringe of territory, in which want and scarcity, but not famine, was anticipated. In this outer fringe were those portions of the North-West Provinces affected by the drought. There was a very abundant harvest in the Punjaub, and in

  801
  parts of the North-West Provinces, and large quantities of grain were brought down by private trade into the North-West Provinces and those parts of Bengal intersected by the railways. The Government felt that they might largely rely upon private trade for the supply of this outer fringe, and they therefore concentrated their attention upon those districts which, from want of access or other causes, private trade would not be able to supply. It was therefore in consequence of the Famine expenditure in the North - West Provinces being so small that the expenditure in Behar and Bengal was so large, for the grain and rice which would otherwise have reached the Famine districts in Bengal was absorbed by the outer belt of scarcity surrounding them. From a Return which would shortly be in the hands of hon. Members, they would find that out of a total of 479,696 tons of rice which had been purchased, close upon 200,000 tons had been devoted to relieving the districts north of the Ganges, the waste being 21,000 tons; while there remained at the close of the Famine 95,126 tons on hand, which had been sold at £2 16 s. per ton. The total estimated expenditure for the Famine was £6,500,000, and the actual amount was £6,304,809. The surplus revenues of the two years would, if the Famine had not taken place, have amounted to £4,000,000, but the Famine had turned this surplus into a deficit of £2,300,000. Taking, therefore, into account the supposed want of elasticity in the Indian Revenues, he thought that the fact of there being an exceptional expenditure of £6,300,000 during two years, and the revenues of India being able to furnish £4,000,000 of that expenditure without any additional taxation, was the strongest proof he could offer that they were not in a very unsatisfactory condition.
  He now came to the Budget Estimate for 1875–6. The Revenue was estimated at £49,820,000, somewhat higher than that of the preceding years. The Estimate of Opium Revenue for the year was taken higher than in the Budgets of preceding years. It had been found that the net Opium Revenue since 1866–7 had averaged £6,620,927, and that it had never been below £6,000,000. The Government of India had taken it this
  802
  year at £5,750,000, being £250,000 below the lowest amount since 1866–7. The other items of Revenue showed a very small, but still not unsatisfactory increase. The Expenditure was estimated at £49,314,000, being £1,189,000 in excess of the year immediately preceding, exclusive of the Famine expenditure.
  There was an increase of £191,000 for Army charges, of £451,000 for guarantees of interest, while there was a loss on exchanges amounting to £621,000, making a total of £1,163,000. Now, with respect to the Army expenditure, he did not think any very large reduction could be made. He was always under the impression before he came into office that it was possible to make large reductions in the military expenditure; but, with his present experience, he did not see how they were to be made. On the other hand, he thought they could prevent any increase. It should be borne in mind that we had not only imported a great number of European soldiers into India, but that the cost of each individual importation was increasing. A Committee had been appointed before the close of last Session, composed partly of gentlemen from the India Office, and partly of gentlemen connected with the War Office, with Mr. Bouverie as President. Their Report had been issued, and he felt bound to say that it realized the expectations of many who had expressed the opinion that the system of short service would lead rather to the increase than a decrease of the cost of the annual drafts to India, although the increase was not large. The increase of £191,000 for the Army was, he might add, due to certain alterations which were made in the pay given to European troops in India, to the increased pay to majors of Artillery, including those officers who were promoted by Royal Warrant in 1872. At the same time, it must be observed that a considerable portion of that expenditure would ultimately result in benefit to India, as the prospective chances of a certain number of officers of receiving permanent allowances as colonels had been commuted. His hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), in a speech which he made last Session, pointed out that in his opinion the best way to secure economy in Indian expenditure was to interest

  803
  the House of Commons in Indian finance; but he (Lord George Hamilton) felt bound to say that most of the Motions which were brought forward in that House with reference to India were not made with a view to economy, but rather with the object of getting money. It was the fashion to attack the Indian Government for their military expenditure, but it was in no small measure due to the guarantee clause which that House had imposed upon the India Office, and by which the Indian Government was bound to pay, promote, and pension all the officers handed over to them from the East India Company, whether they required their services or not. The increase on account of the interest guaranteed on railways was more nominal than real, inasmuch as last year there was an immense amount of grain carried by the Indian railroads, which swelled the traffic receipts. The Government had, to a certain extent, benefited by those increased receipts; but then it should be borne in mind that there were other items of Revenue in which a loss was caused by the Famine. The loss by exchanges was very serious; but whether it was due to the substitution in Germany of a gold for a silver standard, or any other extraneous cause, he did not propose at present to discuss. He thought it pointed to the wisdom of one of the principles laid down last year in a despatch from the Secretary of State for India to the Governor General. That despatch intimated that if the Indian Government wished to borrow for Public Works, it would be better to borrow in India than in England. As to Home Charges he did not think the charges on the establishment had much increased; the increase under the head of superannuation allowances being simply a matter of account.
  Summing up, then, the accounts for the year 1875–6, we found that the Revenue showed a satisfactory increase, and that the Expenditure, though swollen, still left a fair margin of £500,000 of Ordinary Revenue over Ordinary Expenditure. A great deal had been said about the chronic deficit of the Indian Government; but, taking the figures from the years 1869–70 to 1875–6, the surplus for the seven years, even including the expenditure for the Famine, was no less than £4,695,000. If we excluded
  804
  the Famine Expenditure, which was of a very exceptional character, amounting to £6,304,000, we had a surplus during those seven years of about £11,000,000.
  The most important head of Expenditure was, no doubt, that on Public Works. There were two parties in the House—one, represented by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Smollett), objected to any expenditure for Public Works; and the other, represented by the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester (Sir Thomas Bazley), wished the Government to spend £20,000,000 a-year. No one would dispute that it was the duty of Government to construct Public Works; but it was always a difficult question to decide where a Government should stop and private enterprize begin. As, however, there was not much private enterprize in India, more depended on the Government than would otherwise be the case, or than would be necessary some years hence when private enterprize had been stimulated. It was the special duty of the Indian Government to construct works of general utility and of a remunerative character, for the Indian Government was the owner of the soil of the country, and derived a very large revenue from it. They were much in the position of a landlord who, possessing a large property, determined by opening it out, to increase its value, although aware that the actual tolls levied on the roads constructed, might not compensate him for the cost of their construction. Lord Dalhousie, first perceiving the enormous advantage of introducing the railway system into India, made certain proposals to the Court of Directors, and suggested that railways should be constructed by companies who should receive the guarantee of Government. His proposals were accepted in the main, though with many modifications which were not favourable to the Indian Government. There were two reasons why it was then necessary to entrust the construction of railroads to guaranteed companies—first, they would not have been undertaken by private enterprize without a guarantee; and, second, the East India Company could not themselves have constructed them without exceeding their borrowing powers in England. Therefore, the guarantee system was almost the only way in which money could be

  805
  raised for constructing railroads, and it had its advantages as well as its disadvantages. It secured the continuous application of capital; but, on the other hand, the mere fact of giving a guarantee, particularly when the rate of interest was high, did not lead to economy either of construction or working. Lord Lawrence, in a Minute with which hon. Members would be familiar, pointed out that it was impossible that this system could go on much longer. His opinions were adopted by Lord Mayo, and the system of guarantee was now at an end. The Indian Government still felt the great importance of carrying on the construction of railways; and as they refused to avail themselves of the aid of guaranteed companies, it became necessary that they should construct them themselves. In 1873 the Government of India by resolution announced the intention to devote, for five years, £4,500,000 to the construction of Public Works Extraordinary, which were to be of a reproductive character—£3,000,000tobespent on railways and £1,500,000 on canals. When, the Marquess of Salisbury came into office he found this resolution of the Indian Government recorded, and it was in consequence of the determination of the Indian Government to spend this large sum annually, that last year a Bill was passed through Parliament by which was appointed an officer through whom responsibility might be concentrated and brought home to those whose estimates might prove to be incorrect.
  One of the advantages of the Budget being postponed until August was, that within the last few days he had received a forecast of the Public Works expenditure. As the hon. Member for Cambridge was going to call special attention to this point, he was glad to be armed with the Return, which showed that the Government of India were very cautiously entering upon the construction of Public Works, that their calculations had proved correct, and that no additional annual charge for the construction of the works which they undertook would be placed against the Revenues of India. Lord Lawrence estimated that the Revenues of India would bear an annual charge of £2,000,000; and Lord Mayo and Lord North brook had both held that those Revenues could afford to bear the present annual charge for
  806
  Public Works, amounting to £2,200,000, in which was included guaranteed interest. The calculation which the Indian Government had made was that they would annually spend for the next three or four years a sum of £4,000,000 upon the construction of Public Works Extraordinary, and at the end of that time, owing to the reduction of guaranteed interest, and to the receipts from the constructed works, the charge for interest would be considerably less than at present. Their Estimates were made with very great caution. They calculated that all the money would have to be borrowed, and borrowed at 4½ per cent. although they could now raise money at a premium at 4 per cent. It was quite clear that, unless something unforeseen occurred, we should be able so to adjust expenditure as in most years to have a surplus of no inconsiderable amount, which could be applied to the construction of Public Works Extraordinary. Therefore, it was more than probable that a considerable portion of the money to be expended upon Public Works would not be borrowed money, and the remainder, instead of being borrowed at 4½ per cent. as estimated, would probably be borrowed at 4 per cent and at a premium. These Estimates were framed upon assumptions most unfavourable, and yet at the end of five years the annual charge on the Revenues of India for Public Works would not be greater than at present, or not as great. The hon. Member for Cambridge might fairly say we were increasing our liability and raising money which would have to be paid off, and he might ask where the sinking fund was for the payment of the incurred debt. The railways and other works which they were constructing would develop the latent resources of India, and thus add to the Revenue, and the increase of the Revenue would furnish a sinking fund. The outlay upon State railways had been and was estimated to be as follows:—Up to 1873–4, £5,606,125; during 1874–5, £2,777,550; 1875–6, £3,000,000; and from 1876 to 1880, £2,700,000 annually.
  The other class of Public Works which it was proposed to construct was irrigation works. The total amount which had been expended on irrigation works up to 1873–4 was £11,703,775; and the Re-turn was £610,771, which showed a

  807
  dividend of 5·2 per cent. The annual outlay for irrigation was at the rate of £ 1,300,000 a-year for the next four years. If the guarantee system as regarded railways had not always been satisfactory, he was afraid that the attempt to carry on irrigation works by means of guarantees had been an absolute failure, because the last irrigation company did not even pay its working expenses. While the Committee would be disposed to support the Government in carrying out irrigation works where a supply of water was absolutely necessary, he could quite understand their wishing to press upon the Government of India the great necessity of proceeding with caution. Lord North brook was fully aware of that necessity; all the Estimates had been made with the greatest care; and if their anticipations were not realized, it would always be possible to stop the expenditure upon that class of Public Works, which experience proved were unremunerative in their character.
  Taking the expenditure upon Public Works Extraordinary for the three years 1873–4, 1874–5, and 1875–6, we arrived at the following results:—There were deficits for these years respectively of £5,360,975, £4,526,592, and £3,794,000. The Committee would see that the policy, as now carried out, was no new one. The Indian Government were conducting these Public Works under more favourable conditions. The railways were being made more cheaply than before. The money could be borrowed at 4 instead of 5 per cent. and, if possible, the money necessary to be borrowed was to be borrowed in India. Last year he stated the principles on which the Secretary of State had determined the Public Works in India should be constructed. They were that only works of a remunerative character should be undertaken; that they should be constructed from money borrowed in India; and that those of an unproductive character should be debited against ordinary Revenue. To those principles the Secretary of State was determined to adhere.
  The cash balances for 1874–5 were in India £15,700,000, and in England £2,793,000, makingtogether£18,493,000 The expenditure for Public Works Extraordinary this year would amount to £4,300,000. The withdrawal of capital by the guaranteed railway companies was not yet completed, and was estimated
  808
  for the present year at £633,700, making altogether £4,933,700, for which it would be necessary to find ways and means. There was a surplus of £500,000, and certain cash receipts amounted to £316,000, so that after deducting these sums there would remain £4,100,000 to be provided. If the whole of that sum were taken from the cash balances, they would be reduced to £12,000,000 in India, and £2,500,000 in England. The Viceroy thought that would leave them too low in India, and in June, 1875, he had borrowed 2.50.00.000 rupees in Calcutta. The result of that loan was most satisfactory. The tenders were opened on the 16th of June, at Calcutta. The minimum was fixed at par. The total amount at or above the minimum applied for amounted to 5.45.47.500 rupees. Of that sum 3.59.32.100 rupees had been applied for by Europeans, and 1.86.15.400 rupees by Natives. In addition to this, so much higher were the tenders by Natives, that 1.07.33.500 rupees were allotted to Europeans, and 1.42.66.500 rupees to Natives. The average rate at which the loan was obtained was 102.4.1 rupees, and the tenders at 102 were accepted to the amount of only 88.97 per cent, so that the first result of the financial principle that the money employed in reproductive works should be borrowed in India had been extremely satisfactory.
  He had now endeavoured to state fairly the condition of Indian Finance. He could not disguise from the Committee that this Public Works expenditure, if it were not remunerative, placed a heavy charge upon the Revenues of India. The Viceroy and the Secretary of State would, therefore, watch very carefully the result of this outlay, and would stop it whenever it proceeded beyond due limits. The best proof that the condition of Indian finance was not unsatisfactory was the credit of India in the market. Some might think that this was due to the connection between England and India. It would, however, be found that the credit of India since 1865 had risen in a greater proportion than the credit of England, and this rise of credit must be due to the fact that Indian finance was annually assuming a more satisfactory character. Foreign trade was increasing. If the Indian Government was able to devote a large sum every year to works of a reproductive

  809
  character, thus adding to the wealth and productive power of the country, without increasing the annual charges, and if the annual expenditure were kept below the income, the financial condition and credit of India must steadily improve. He would admit that the margin was not such as to allow of great reforms; but the two reforms which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, were necessary, were a reform of the salt duties and the import duties. He believed that in a few years they would be able to place the salt duties in a satisfactory position. A few days ago they received a telegram stating that the Viceroy had effected certain alterations in the tariff of India. A few weeks ago a despatch had been written by the Secretary of State respecting the cotton duties, showing that whatever competition occurred between Manchester and Indian goods was confined to the coarser goods, and that Manchester was supreme in the higher class of goods. In that despatch, which had not yet been received in India, the Secretary of State pointed out that India possessed advantages in her proximity to the place of production, and in having an unlimited supply of labour; while, on the other hand, Manchester had great advantages arising from capital and machinery, and from possessing an older-established and more scientifically worked industry. The opinion of the Secretary of State was, that even without the import duty the manufactures of India would hold their own in the coarser fabrics of cotton. The Secretary of State added, that whenever it was assumed that the interests of England and India were antagonistic, the sooner such a dispute was settled the better, because the irritation caused by this supposed antagonism would increase and render a satisfactory settlement of the question annually more difficult. A telegram had recently been received stating that the Government of India proposed to make certain alterations in the tariff. It was impossible to discuss so important a question as the revision of the tariff by telegraph. He hoped the Committee would not assume, as a matter of course, that the proposals of the Governor General must receive in their entirety the sanction of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would give this matter his most careful consideration, and whether these proposals were accepted, or whether
  810
  the Secretary of State might find it to be his duty to consider an alternative plan, the Committee might rely upon it that whatever alterations were adopted they would not be opposed to the financial policy of the last 25 years.
  One of the great advantages of Indian finance was that two-fifths of the total revenues were raised from the land. That was a source of revenue that could not slip away, and so far from being likely to diminish it must increase. He would admit that the Customs and Excise did not show great signs of elasticity. The Customs, the Excise, the Stamps, and Salt, however, showed an increase of £350,000 on an average of the last two years compared with the three preceding years, and if that increase was not so great as could be wished, it must be borne in mind that a reduction of duties in India did not lead to that great increase of consumption which accompanied every reduction of the tariff in this country. The Natives of India were frugal and abstemious, and their powers of consumption were as limited as ours were unbounded; and until a revolution was effected in the habits, nature, and mode of life of the people of India, we could not put in force that financial policy which had enabled us, by constant remissions of taxations, to raise even larger sums from the taxes which remained. He must admit that the expenditure of India could not be largely reduced. We had given India a better Government than she ever had before, and we had secured for her the inestimable advantages of peace and order. Introducing, however, European system of Government, it had been necessary to annually import a large number of British subjects to carry on the civil administration of India, and the presence of a European Army enabled the Native troops to put down local disturbances and secure order in the most remote districts. If, however, we attempted to dispense with the European element, England would eliminate the backbone of her Government in India. Although the charges for administration and for the Army in India need not necessarily increase, yet as the Europeans were taken from a country where the price of everything was increasing, it was probable that the Indian Government would not be able greatly to

  811
  reduce that portion of expenditure. If they could not largely reduce expenditure, on the other hand, by a judicious revision from time to time of their tariff, and by a cautious system of Public Works expenditure, they might, he believed, largely increase the productive power, and, consequently, the capacity of India to bear taxation. If they could succeed in so developing the resources and the latent wealth of India, and in so improving her moral and material condition as to annually enable her to bear with greater ease the cost of the Government from whom she had derived such benefits, they would have achieved a two-fold feat more tending to their credit as a nation than the long series of victories and successes which had made them masters of the Indian Empire. The noble Lord concluded by moving the formal Budget Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it appears by the Accounts laid before this House that the total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1874 was £49,598,253; the charges in India, including the collection of the Revenue, Interest on Debt, and Public Works ordinary, were £42,094,995; the charges in England (including £1,156,535, the value of Stores supplied to India) were £7,873,574; the. Guaranteed Interest on the Capital of Railway and other Companies in India and in England, deducting net Traffic Receipts, was £1,437,352, making a total charge for the same year of £51,405,921; and there was an excess of Expenditure over Income in that year amounting to £1,807,668; that the charge for Public Works extraordinary was £3,553,307, and that, including that charge, the excess of Expenditure over Income was £5,360,975."—[Lord George Hamilton.)
  MR. SMOLLETT, in rising to move to add at the end of the Question,
  "and, in the opinion of the Committee, the statement of the Indian Finance now submitted is unsatisfactory, because the policy of the Government of India is based upon the principle of borrowing large sums of money in each year, without reference to the income of the Country, in order to carry on, through Government agency, undertakings of a speculative character, and classed as 'extraordinary,' many of which, especially works of irrigation, past experience has proved to be unremunerative,"
  said, he was not one of those who thought that any great mischief was perpetrated because the Financial Accounts of our great Indian Empire were not laid upon the Table of the House at at early period of the Session. It was said that those Accounts were only produced and discussed at a time of the
  812
  year when hon. Members, wearied with six months of laborious idleness, and jaded with constant wrangling, were little inclined to take into serious consideration any topic of grave importance. Secretaries of State had promised reform in that matter, but it never came; and, for his part, he thought it mattered little whether it came or not, because if the Accounts were laid before them in February, at the same time as the Speech from the Throne, and discussed in March, the same apathy, indifference and neglect would be exhibited as were shown in the month of August. The reason was obvious. At the last General Election in 1874, there were returned to the House only six Gentlemen who, by long residence in India, had acquired any knowledge whatever of the country or the wants of its inhabitants, and the number of those Gentlemen was diminishing in every Parliament. It was not so in former times. In bygone days, under the double Government, before the destruction of the old Court of Directors, men of eminence in the civil and military services, gentlemen who had made fortunes in commerce, or men who had attained to eminence at the Indian Bar, sought eagerly admittance to the House of Commons, and frequently obtained admittance; for a seat in Parliament in those days was reckoned a stepping-stone to the attainment of a seat in the Court of Directors—a haven of bliss to old Indians. Gentlemen in Parliament, and possessed of seats in the Court of Directors, were well posted up in Indian affairs, and if any job, political or financial, was in contemplation, they had ample opportunity of dealing with and exposing it. Now, men who returned from India were placed in the Indian Council, and were not allowed to enter that House, which thus lost the benefit of their wisdom and experience, if they had any. The consequence was, that the Secretary of State was the only person who knew anything of the policy about to be pursued in India, and Secretaries of State for India very seldom took the House of Commons into their confidence, while debates raised by independent Gentlemen were generally as dull as ditch water. On the 3rd of August last year they discussed the financial affairs of India, and it was reported in the Resolution of the House that there was a surplus revenue of

  813
  £1,765,000. That, however, was a sham surplus. There was a real deficit of £418,000, caused by expenditure on Public Works Extraordinary. The Budget of 1872 was not, however, a bad one, because it was framed on the policy of Lord Mayo—namely, that no public work should be constructed with borrowed cash. That policy he enforced stringently from 1869, and it proved to be a great success, for in 1870 and 1871 Lord Mayo had the satisfaction of seeing a surplus income amounting in the two years to an aggregate sum of £1,810,000, and although there was a deficit of £418,000 in 1872, it was not met by borrowing money. The deficit of that year was paid out of the great cash balances which had accumulated under the Government of Lord Mayo, and which amounted to something like £19,000,000. The Budget of 1873, which was now before the Committee, was framed upon a totally different policy. In July of that year Lord North brook, with the concurrence of his Council, passed a resolution ordering the expenditure during the next five years of £22,000,000 sterling on Public Works Extraordinary. The outlay was required to be made at the rate of £4,500,000 a-year, and the money was to be spent without the slightest reference to the Ways and Means of the year. This resolution entirely set aside the prudent policy of Lord Mayo. Well, in 1873 there was a deficit of £5,360,000. Next year there was a deficit of £4,588,000, and in 1875 the estimated deficit was £3,794,000, the deficits of the three years amounting to £13,742,000. That he regarded as mischievous finance, although it was sanctioned by the Duke of Argyll and was apparently tolerated by the Marquess of Salisbury. In 1873 there was—if they did not take the Famine Charge into account—a surplus of ordinary revenue amounting to £2,050,000. That sum was applicable strictly to the relief of the Famine, and as the charge under that head in 1873 was £3,880,000, the whole amount necessarily required for the exigencies of the Famine would have been met by the surplus of £2,050,000, together with £1,800,000 to be taken from the cash balances of £19,000,000. If this course had been adopted, India would have met all her legitimate requirements without borrowing money. But heavy loans were had
  814
  recourse to, because Lord North brook needed a further sum of £9,000,000 sterling, agreeably with the resolution of July, 1873, for expenditure in that and in the following year. This expenditure was for extraordinary undertakings—works which he would show were unremunerative. As the famine of 1873–4 had been mentioned in connection with Indian Finance, he would, with the permission of the Committee, venture to say a few words on that subject. The Famine itself was the sole topic that occupied the minds of the people of England last year in connection with Indian affairs, and that was the only matter that had been shunted in both Houses of Parliament. His observations on the subject should be laudatory, because he liked to give credit where credit was due. In dealing with this great calamity, which threatened for a time to destroy the fertility of some of the finest provinces in Upper Bengal, Lord North brook had exhibited the true spirit of an English statesman, a spirit that had never before been displayed in our management of Indian affairs. In 1874, for the first time since Great Britain had become the paramount power in Hindustan, the entire resources of the Exchequer of that great country had been applied without limit and without stint—he wished he could say without undue profusion—to the relief of suffering humanity. He was not going to refer in detail to the manner in which the Famine had been met, because he believed that some difference of opinion existed upon that point. He would not discuss those differences, because, in the end, every obstacle, every difficulty, every disaster seen, had been surmounted; and, moreover, he might say that everybody appeared to have co-operated most loyally with the Viceroy with the view of saving life. The whole credit of the way in which the Famine had been dealt with was, however, due to Lord North brook, who had never truckled to idle sentiment or to silly clamour, and had refused from the first to lay an embargo upon the export of cereals from Bengal, a course of proceeding which might have obtained for him some temporary popularity, but which would have eventually landed him in considerable difficulties. If ultimate success was proof of absolute

  815
  wisdom, then Lord North brook's action was beyond criticism, as far as the means he adopted for stopping the Famine were concerned. The very success, however, that had attended that action rendered it clear to him (Mr. Smollett) that the extent of the Famine itself had been somewhat exaggerated. Had the Famine been so severe as had been represented, many thousands of people must have inevitably died of starvation, whereas the House was informed that only 22 persons had died from the effects of the Famine out of a population of as many millions. If the Famine had been as severe as had been stated, such a result would have been, not a marvel, but a miracle, and he believed that the age of miracles was passed. The paucity of deaths officially reported; the absence of all authoritative information of any great destruction of agricultural stock, and the fact that many hundred thousands of the peasantry were fed from Government funds up to November, 1874, all tended to show that profusion was the order of the day in India. But he did not blame Lord North brook for that profusion, inasmuch as the times were not favourable in that year to economy, and the pressure brought to bear on Lord North brook and his Council probably rendered that profusion unavoidable. All honour, therefore, in his judgment, was due to the present Viceroy in this matter. His conduct throughout this difficulty contrasted most favourably with official action in 1867. In that year, a famine of great intensity raged in Orissa, a Province immediately contiguous to the seat of Government in Calcutta. But the matter was neglected; and in that year 1,000,000 of people, out of 5,000,000 of population, were proved to have perished miserably through sheer neglect. In his judgment, if the same respectable mediocrity had been in office in India in 1874, the mistakes, disasters, and horrors of 1867 would have been infallibly reproduced. Having said this much in praise of Lord North brook, he felt bound to state that, under that noble Lord's auspices, the finances of India were yearly getting into an awful muddle. There was immense and wasteful profusion in the Civil Service and in the Army. In the latter especially, promotion was given in the most extravagant manner, and legions of field officers were
  816
  created, who idled their time in India while drawing £1,000 per annum in that country, merely to enable them to attain a rank which would give them £1,200 a-year in this country. His strictures, however, would chiefly apply to the Public Works Department. He had been told by Members of the Indian Council that India would be perfectly able to meet all her requirements, provided some check could be put upon the wild extravagance and the waste of her Public Works Department. Barracks and other establishments had been built everywhere, rivers were being opened up, and works of irrigation were being constructed in the interior, and altogether the riot and extravagance in the Department were something awful. He had obtained last year from reliable sources a return of the total sum paid to the department of public works in India, from which it appeared that that total amounted to no less that £1,250,000 sterling per annum. Doubting the accuracy of these startling figures, he had asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir George Balfour) to revise them, and the result of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's revision was to increase the total to £1,500,000. Under those circumstances, he thought that he was justified in denouncing this Department as a vile and bloated one. It had increased, it was increasing, and it ought to be diminished; it was under no control, it was master of the situation, and it was a permanent establishment. It would be a great bane to the wealthiest country in the world, but to a poor country like India it was an absolute curse, because it required an expenditure of some £10,000,000 a-year upon public works as an excuse for its existence. In his opinion, that establishment ought to be reduced in numbers and in pay by at least one-half, otherwise India would never have a surplus. He protested against the way in which Indian Budgets were prepared—there being first an Ordinary Budget, out of which everything was kept that could be omitted; then there was an Extraordinary Budget, in which everything was put that was omitted from the first; and then there was a Famine Budget besides. All Indian Budgets came before the Committee of that House three times—first as a Sketch Budget, next as a Regular Budget, and then, in the third

  817
  year, as an Actual Budget—a process that was greatly calculated to mislead. This system was introduced six or eight years ago by one of those financiers whom we sent out to teach the Indian officials arithmetic. However introduced, it was indefensible, for it served only to mislead and delude. There was always shown a surplus of Revenue, which was a mere sham, for the Executive in India had for many years been perfectly unable to make the two ends meet, and had been obliged year after year to have recourse to loans. No Budget was worth the paper on which it was written if it did not show in one sheet all the expenditure which the Government meant to sanction during the year. There should be no division into "Ordinary" and "Extraordinary," and the Budget should be framed in entire subordination to the Ways and Means of the year, and in no single year in time of peace should any proposal for disbursement exceed the Revenue of the year. They should rather fall below it. If there was a surplus of income that surplus should be applied to the diminution of the National Debt of India, and if there was a constant surplus, taxation should betaken off, those taxes being remitted which pressed most severely upon the people. If, on the contrary, there was an annual deficit, then the Viceroy should be required to show by what fresh taxation the Income and Expenditure could be balanced. Budgets like the present, which showed in the receipts the income derived from Extraordinary Works, but did not show the expenditure which was the origin of that particular income, were Budgets which deceived the public and aid the truth. In his judgment, the time had come when by some authoritative Resolution of Parliament a stop should be put to the waste and extravagance which had been going on for many years, particularly in the Department of Public Works. Immense sums of money had been devoted to Extraordinary Works, of which we knew nothing except that they were, to a great extent, unproductive. In the years from 1872 to 1875, inclusive, the Expenditure of India had exceeded the Revenue by £14,100,000 or £14,200,000. That was a very serious state of things in times of perfect peace. The excess of Expenditure had been met by borrowing £10,500,000
  818
  in this country and in India to carry on Public Works, and by the abstraction of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 from the cash balances. It was the object of his Resolution to compel the Viceroy to keep within his income of £50,000,000. If we meant, as he presumed we did, to rule India for a couple of centuries or so, and if we desired to see a contented population, we must adopt a safe line of finance. On the 9th of June last year the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, addressing an august Assembly over the way, praised to the skies the Public Works Department. He admitted that finance was not its strong point; but he rejoiced exceedingly that it had works of irrigation to carry out, the cost of which would be £18,000,000. He said, moreover, that that amount would have to be greatly increased. He referred to one scheme, prepared, as he said, by one of the great engineers of India, which would itself require £14,000,000in addition to the£18,000,000 already mentioned. His Lordship then pointed out that the construction of 9,000 miles of railway was in contemplation, and altogether he spoke of an expenditure of £100,000,000 on Public Works in British India. That Apostle of Indian expenditure (Sir Arthur Cotton) wrote to The Times rejoicing that £100,000,000 was going to be immediately expended, and hoping it would be followed by other hundreds of millions in rapid succession. And Sir Arthur Cotton was not supposed to be out of his mind. In Manchester, in January last, however, the noble Lord spoke in a different strain, a strain which he (Mr. Smollett) could by no means reconcile with what had just been uttered by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State (Lord George Hamilton) upon the subject. Some of his Lancashire friends had been pressing him to urge forward works of irrigation; but the Marquess of Salisbury, on this occasion, pooh - poohed irrigation. He said that years ago he had believed in great profits from irrigation, relying on the strong assertions of certain gentlemen who had made themselves its advocates, and who propounded false doctrines on the subject; but he had lately looked into the accounts, and it would have been well if he had done so some years previously. He had found that it was all a deception.

  819
  Very few works indeed, he said, had been a success, and many of them had been great impostures. Yet they had heard again to-night, from the Under Secretary for India, of profits. He (Mr. Smollett) had no faith whatever in calculations which showed such a result. It was not for him to reconcile the discrepancies of the two statements of the noble Lord. To him they were an enigma. For his part, he had never altered his opinion. Twenty-five years ago he investigated the subject of irrigation in India, and made himself master of it. He saw the delusions which people sought to spread about enormous profits, and he endeavoured to dissipate them. He denounced, not irrigation, but irrigation according to the principles of stupid military engineers. He showed the falseness of the data of their calculations as to profit, and the still greater falseness of their data as to expenditure. In this country in and out of Parliament, he followed the same course; but he might as well have whistled jigs to milestones, hoping to see them dance, as expect to get an Indian Secretary of State to listen to words of common sense. Every Secretary of State who had been selected for office during the last 15 years had been appointed mainly because he knew nothing of the country. They had all been men of intense faith. They had believed in the stories which engineers told of profits of 100 per cent. showing as much credulity as the men who had put their faith in the Honduras Loan or the Emma Mine. Every Viceroy also who had been sent out during the last 15 or 20 years had been indoctrinated, first of all, with the idea that the more money he spent in irrigation works the more would his services be valued. So, likewise, with the Governors who had been sent to Madras and Bombay. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Sir Seymour Fitzgerald) said last year that he went out to Bombay crammed to the throat with the idea that the application of water to the soil would prove to be the panacea for all the ills that India was heir to. Perhaps he believed it would even resuscitate the Bank of Bombay. Now, however, in the opinion of the right hon. Member there had been great waste in that Presidency owing to the expenditure on irrigation. He said that some millions had been thrown away. If he had to
  820
  commence his duties in India afresh, his course of conduct would be very different. In this country the mania for irrigation was declining—the fever had abated somewhat; but in India it was as rife as ever. In proof of this he need only mention that in 1874, notwithstanding all his experience. Lord North-brook sent round the country a host of engineers to devise new works, and to send in with hot haste estimates for immediate approval and sanction. Colonel Rundall, one of the least efficient officers he (Mr. Smollett) had ever known, forwarded last Christmas, in obedience to the Viceroy's commands, an estimate for works which would cost £15,000,000. Lord Northbrook seemed at that time to be labouring under a fever produced by a pressure of water on the brain. The time had come to put a stop to this system. If works of this character and magnitude were undertaken, the money needed for their construction should be borrowed on the security of the works themselves, and not upon the credit of the Indian Revenue. Perhaps it would be said that all this was idle declamation and heedless rhetoric. He might be asked to give specimens of the extravagance and waste which he denounced. That he was able to do. The Marquess of Salisbury, speaking at Manchester, referred to two large works, which his Lordship regretted to say hardly paid their working expenses. They were the Madras Irrigation work and the Orissa undertaking. The Madras Irrigation work was not a Government work. It was still in the hands of private parties. But it had been petted, patronized, and paid for by Secretaries of State; and the conduct of those functionaries in regard to this undertaking had been so reprehensible that an exposure of that work was not out of place. The work was launched to the public in December, 1858, under the guise of a joint-stock company (limited). There was a nominal capital of £2,000,000. The prospectus set forth that, as the Government of India was then engaged in putting down a great rebellion, that joint-stock company would by their own means show in the course of a very few years how the resources of British India and the revenue derived from the land would be doubled by the application of water to the soil. All that the company wanted was territory in

  821
  which to embark their capital, and a guarantee that that territory would remain in their hands a sufficient number of years to develop its resources. The then Secretary of State, with much zeal, embraced the cause of the company, and settled that they should hold the territory assigned to them for 25 years, at the end of which the Government might purchase that joint-stock company at the price it bore in the London market. The Governor of Madras was ordered to assign them a portion of territory. The selection of the territory was made under the auspices of Sir Arthur Cotton, and everything went well until the money came to be raised. The noble Lord the present Secretary of State for India said—and that showed how ill-informed he still was—that 10 years ago everybody believed in 100 per cent profits from irrigation works. The people of London, however, at that time, did not believe in those profits, for when the money came to be raised there was a difficulty. But the Directors were equal to the emergency. The company persuaded the Secretary of State to give a guarantee for the first £1,000,000 they raised, telling him, of course, that that was the last call they would make upon him; and he gave them the guarantee, not for 25 years, but in perpetuity. The consequence was that £50,000, less income tax, had been paid by the Government of India to those adventurers ever since; and it would continue to be paid until the crack of doom. In 1866 the first £1,000,000 was expended and a portion of the canal was made, amounting to the extent of 76 miles. The directors were then called on to find the money to go on with it, and they tried to sell fresh shares in the market, but nobody would buy them. They, therefore, went to the noble Lord the then Secretary of State (the Marquess of Ripon), and asked him for a fresh guarantee on £2,000,000 more; but the noble Marquess refused to entertain the application. He desired the directors to resign the work that they had so mismanaged, and offered to take it over with all its responsibilities. The directors declined, and after a little negotiation £600,000 was advanced from the public cash to finish the first section of the work as far as Cuddapah. The understanding come to was, that if the first section did not pay in 1870, when the additional £500,000 was
  822
  spent, the work should be handed over to the Government. In 1870 the section was completed as far as Cuddapah but there were no receipts; and again the Government asked the directors to deliver it over with its engagements. The directors peremptorily refused. They took high ground. They said they would not be deprived of a work of so profitable a nature, and from that day to this, though it had not yielded one shilling of revenue, they had contrived to keep possession of the work. It was true they had refunded £220,000 of debentures; but then they borrowed £360,000 and mortgaged the Government works for that amount, paying back the £220,000 with that borrowed money. Nobody doubted that the work would ultimately become the property of the Government. It had not done so now, simply because the directors expected to be paid for relinquishing it; and when the Government got it, they would obtain a work which was destructive to the country through which it went. Without reckoning compound interest, it stood the Government in £3,000,000 of money, and it had not yielded a sixpence of net revenue in the present year. So much for this Toombuddra undertaking. He would now, in a few words, expose the Orissa work, which was a greater scandal than the Madras Irrigation, though that, perhaps, seemed impossible. He had all the papers with him, substantiating what he had to say, but he would not trouble the Committee with them. It, too, was originally made by a joint-stock company, who in 1868 were in a state of impecuniosity, while the work was perfectly unproductive. In their distress the company went to the Government and offered to sell it, and in 1868 he had in that House tried to prevent that purchase; but, of course, his observations were treated with contempt. It was purchased, in the year 1867, under a Liberal Government, and £1,048,000 was paid for it; a douceur of £24,000 being paid to the secretary of the company for his services in negotiating the sale, so delighted were the directors at their escape from responsibility. £1,250,000 sterling had since been laid out on the work and its extension. The capital was now £2,283,585, and the loss in working last year was £23,000. In a few years more, with interest upon this capital account, the cost of this work would stand, at the

  823
  least, at £3,000,000 sterling. It might be said that those things were now better managed under Lord North-brook; but he could show that the condition of some other of those undertakings of very recent origin were just as bad as that in Orissa. On these matters they sometimes learnt more from well-authenticated letters in newspapers than even from Secretaries of State. No paper in London had correspondents who were better informed about what was going on in India than The Times. It was from a communication addressed to that journal that he would now quote. In The Times of the latter end of October, 1874, there appeared a letter dated the 2nd of the same month from its Special Correspondent in Calcutta, which was written with a view to bring to the notice of the English public the services and the opinions of Sir John Strachey, an Indian official of high position and an advocate of public works, who had recently recorded a Minute upon that subject in the archives of the Government. The Times Correspondent, after speaking of Sir John Strachey as one of the ablest men who had been sent out to India, proceeded as follows:—
  "From the foregoing Minute the readers of The Times will see that Sir John Strachey, while insisting that it is the duty of the Government to push on irrigation to the utmost extent, expresses a strong opinion that the present system, if it goes on long enough, must end in financial ruin. The last published accounts in India show the force of this. The total receipts from irrigation works in 1872–73 are stated to he £3,600 on an expenditure of £2,220,000. The last example of the same kind"—
  he (Mr. Smollett) would beg the particular attention of the Under Secretary of State to what followed—
  "was the Agra Canal," which has just been opened. "It leaves the Jumna a little below Delhi. It runs through an extremely dry country. The cost of the canal is £900,000; it is a work of the greatest possible utility, although no one will use it, and it has just been opened to the public. Although the conditions under which the work has been undertaken are most favourable, the engineers report that the estimated result of the operations of this canal for the first five years will be a loss to Government of £200,000. And I have the best reason to know that this is far too sanguine an estimate."
  The Correspondent went on to express his astonishment that people should shut their eyes to such facts. The late lamented Governor General of India (Lord Mayo) earnestly protested
  824
  against carrying out works of this unprofitable nature. Of course, the Correspondent and Sir John Strachey had their own way of making the works profitable. They contended that if the people would not use the works, a benevolence in the form of a poll tax must be levied on the districts through which they passed. That was a scheme which was seriously proposed by those gentlemen; and, so far as he was aware, the Marquess of Salisbury leant to it a good deal. But, be that as it might, he (Mr. Smollett) had spent 30 years in India, and he knew that the people would rejoice to have water, if it were brought to them in a proper manner. If irrigation was endeavoured to be forced upon the people, they would openly resist so scandalous an imposition. He had now done. He had shown how, in matters of irrigation, the money of the inhabitants of India had been mercilessly squandered; and if the exposure only effected some good, the trouble which he had taken to make it would not have been in vain. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "and, in the opinion of the Committee, the Statement of Indian Finance now submitted is unsatisfactory, because the policy of the Government of India is based upon the principle of borrowing large sums of money in each year, without referenee to the income of the Country, in order to carry on, through Government agency, undertakings of a speculative character, and classed as 'extraordinary,' many of which, especially works of irrigation, past experience has proved to be unremunerative."—(Mr. Smollett.)
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he did not take up the same unfavourable idea which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Smollett) had placed before the House with regard to the state of the finances of India. He thought that, considering the nature of the excesses, we had no reason to despond, provided we kept an attentive eye upon the expenditure in future. No doubt, expenditure had kept pace with increased income, but it should be remembered that our expenditure had been swollen by the year of Famine. In 19 years there had been 14 deficits and five surpluses; in the last three years the Expenditure had exceeded the Revenue by £10,000,000, which included

  825
  £6,300,000 on account of the Famine, leaving £3,700,000, which could have been saved by diminishing the expenditure on Public Works by £1,000,000 a-year. The Revenue had risen from £33,330,000 in 1857 to £50,000,000 at the present time. Although the Debt had been doubled, being about £60,000,000 in 1856–7 and £120,000,000 now, the interest had not risen proportionately, for it was £3,000,000 then and £5,100,000 now, which showed that we were able to borrow money on more easy terms than the East India Company. He attached the greatest importance to accuracy in the accounts, which had been much improved of late years, but still needed appendices to exhibit details which were needed for clearness. The expenditure on Public Works scarcely received the attention its importance demanded. On Ordinary, Extraordinary, and other provincial works the annual expenditure was £10,000,000, and the accounts ought to be so clear that the hon. Member for Cambridge could understand them. He was glad to hear that the Government of India intended carefully to consider the question of the salt duty, for there was no branch of Indian affairs that more required looking into. For the last 19 years the consumption of salt could hardly be said to have increased in India, although the duty had risen from £2,000,000 to £6,000,000. Nothing would bind the affections of the Natives to England more than the total abolition of the duty on salt. It would take a long time before the Government of India could part with a revenue of £6,000,000, but every reduction of this duty would be an immense benefit, and nothing was more likely to extend commerce between the Provinces of India than the freedom of salt from duty. It was a most important article of necessity with the population, and by aiding the people with the means of conveying it through the country from Madras and other places where it was largely manufactured, a great and remunerative trade might be established. The time might also come when Customs' duties might cease, and it would be a noble thing to say that we had in India 3,000 miles of coast entirely free from Customs' duties. It was also desirable to give every encouragement to tea cultivation. In 10 or 20 years Assam would become one of the finest Provinces of India, and there
  826
  were political and commercial advantages in extending its cultivation in Assam, as we should thus be brought into contact with many millions of the best educated and most enterprizing race in China, besides giving employment to many additional thousands of our countrymen. The military expenditure of India was, he thought, capable of considerable reduction. At present India was unfairly charged with much of the expenditure that went on in this country. He had expected that the Committee which sat on Indian Finance would have effected a diminution of those charges, and he regretted that the inquiry, which it was understood would be made by a Special Commission, had not already led to a very considerable reduction of expenditure. There was another point to which he took exception, and that was the growth of the expenditure upon military transports. That was an expenditure which was growing every year, and for which there was no reason whatever. The building of these vessels was a great wrong to India, which did not need transports, seeing that the trade supplied first-class vessels. He should have liked to see the money which was so wasted expended in remunerative Public Works, or in a remission of the duty on salt. Then, again, there was the increased expenditure occasioned by the short-time service. He did not wish to discuss the merits of Lord Card well's measure, but there had never been the least difficulty in getting men to take service in India, and consequently the service in India did not need this inducement to enlist. There was not a regiment in Aldershot which would not, if it had the offer, willingly go there to-morrow. The hon. Member for Cambridge had attacked the Madras Irrigation works, but irrigation was a subject upon which the hon. Member could never be convinced or induced to change his mind. Ought not the fact, that 18,000,000 acres of land which had not the benefit of irrigation did not produce so much revenue as 2,000,000 acres that had water applied, to be convincing even to the hon. Member for Cambridge? He did not deny that mistakes had been made in constructing these works, but he believed that if an account were taken of expenditure on the one hand and results on the other, it would be demonstrated that there was no just ground for

  827
  the attack which the hon. Member had made against Irrigation Works. He hoped the noble Lord, who might yet be advanced to a high position in India, would go out and judge of those things for himself. The hon. Member for Cambridge must be well aware that the irrigation works constructed in the Madras Presidency since 1835 had almost entirely prevented those dreadful famines which were formerly very frequent. The hon. Member could not have forgotten the Famine of 1833, in which year he was Secretary of the Board of Revenue. That famine cut off the largest portion of the people of Guntoor and extended to Madras itself. Even in the neighbourhood of that capital the deaths were many. The roads were covered with the dead, the dying, and the emaciated. But that calamity was now impossible, for the extended and improved works had secured food for the people, and grass for the cattle; so that the cultivation of the land, by the cattle so saved, was certain, after the dearth had passed away, and the rains had fallen. There were still great openings for extension of irrigation works. That noble work on the Godavery, which Sir Arthur Cotton planned and carried on, under difficulties of the most formidable character, would, in after years, make the name of Arthur Cotton foremost amongst the benefactors of India. If the time should come for our rule to cease, that work would remain as a monument of our beneficent sway.
  MR. BECKETT - DENISONsaid, he entirely concurred in the eulogy which the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India had passed on the conduct of Lord Northbrook and his able assistants during the late Famine. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Smollett) was a little unjust in omitting from the list of those who deserved the thanks of the public for their conduct during the Indian famine, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) and Sir Richard Temple. He had heard with great satisfaction that it was intended to abolish the inland customs, and he received as a good sign and a guarantee of our future security in that country, and as an important political indication the fact that the recent Government loan had been taken up largely by the native population of India. He regretted there should be
  828
  maintained out of the revenues of that country an inordinate body of Staff officers: their name was legion; and although many of them were no doubt men of great ability, still they were unemployed men, and no Army could long permit of men drawing large pay without giving any service for it. The noble Lord had told them that the Public Works—on which they had expended £11,000,000—were now yielding a surplus revenue of £600,000, which was equivalent to 5 per cent on the outlay. That was no doubt satisfactory; but if the interest on the capital from the inception of the works to the period at which they became remunerative were added to the outlay, the result would not look so satisfactory. Still, when they were called upon to spend £4,500,000 annually upon Public Works, it was encouraging to find that they had already a system which was remunerative. He was afraid that the establishment at Cooper's Hill, which was nothing else than a new Civil Service, would lead to the growth of another inordinate Staff, similar to that which existed in the Army. He protested against a large source of Indian Revenue—that of the import duties on cotton goods—being surrendered by the Indian Government in obedience to a cry from the Manchester manufacturers of this country, whose system of trade would not bear the light of day. The chief cause of the growing aversion of the Natives of India to Manchester goods was the amount of adulteration. The Native cotton goods had always been superior to those manufactured in this country; and it was only their cheapness, coupled with some honesty of manufacture, that had given them a place in the Indian market. If, to replace the revenue so abandoned, it should become necessary to impose fresh taxation on the people of India, the Indian Government must be prepared for an outburst of indignation. He could not see how the Government of India could be carried on without imposing a moderate import duty on foreign manufactures. Free Trade doctrines were very wholesome in the hands of experts, he would admit; but in the hands of men who did not know how to apply them, they had in the Orissa Famine led to the loss of a million lives.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was unable to take the sanguine view of Indian finance which had been expressed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) and other Members, at the same time that he could not share the extremely gloomy view of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Smollett). It had been the custom to talk of the prosperity of the Indian Revenue, but there was, it seemed to him, a great deal of misapprehension on the subject. A great many charges which used to be debited to Revenue were now kept separate as "Extraordinary Charges," a source, as it seemed to him, of some danger. In regard to some items, this system was justifiable but not so in regard to many others. Notwithstanding the separation of "Extraordinany" Charges, the apparent surplus had been getting smaller, and this year it had nearly disappeared, having come down to £500,000, which was the smallest possible working surplus. If the expenditure on works which were really unreproductive was added to the ordinary expenditure, he was afraid that, instead of a surplus, there would be a large deficit. The main items of Revenue were progressing very slowly. The opium revenue had increased greatly, but was not now increasing. It seemed as if we had reached the limit of our resources in regard to the production of opium. The production had of late fallen much short of the limit which the Government had sought to reach—namely, 66,000 chests a-year, having only reached from 45,000 to 48,000, and although this had led to an increase in price, yet it was to be feared that raising the price might be killing the goose which laid the golden eggs, for it might lead to an increased production of opium in other countries. Of course, in touching on this subject, he spoke purely from the financial point of view. The opium revenue was most precarious. A war with China or a blight might extinguish it. He agreed, therefore, with the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State, in thinking that it was desirable to render India independent of that revenue; but he confessed he saw, at present, no prospect of that result. As to the land revenue, there was very little likelihood that it would rapidly increase. The doctrine was becoming more and more prevalent that the land assessment
  830
  must be made moderate, and the lower it was made, the more people wanted it to be lower still. In fact, we seemed to be coming to a permanent settlement of the question. The Excise revenue of India was happily very slowly increasing. That was a good thing on moral grounds, because they could not desire to encourage a great amount of drinking among the population. He thought the Customs revenue of India was doomed, and that they must make up their minds to find some substitute for it. The Customs duties yielded £2,500,000, nearly £1,000,000 of which was derived from cotton goods. Export duties on sugar and rice also contributed towards that revenue, and if the duty on cotton goods was abolished, the rest of the Customs revenue could hardly be maintained. Again, as to the measure which the noble Lord had indicated in regard to the salt duty; if that measure were adopted, no doubt there would be a considerable reduction in that source of revenue. A comparison of the amounts raised during the last four years from the land revenue, the Excise, the Customs, and the salt duty showed that the increase under those heads had been very slow and gradual. On the other hand, they must be prepared for a considerable increase of charge. He was sure that the railways in which the Government had embarked, and which were mainly undertaken for political purposes, would not pay, and, considering the interest which had to be met on accumulated loans and the deficiency also on the guaranteed railways, it was inevitable that they should have a considerable addition to their expenditure. The charge for Law and Justice was increasing, and if they were to carry out the improvements incident to a modern civilization they must expect to pay for them. The net charge for the Army of India, including military works, barracks, and the cost for superannuations, was nearly £17,000,000 per annum. The number of their force was 180,000 men, and 10,000 officers, a very small number of men for so large a sum. No other so extensive a country was guarded by so small an army, and there could be no doubt that if political difficulties should arise that army would have to be largely increased. Again, it was impossible to put out of sight the fact that famines occurred from time to

  831
  time in India, and if they wished to adopt measures in order to prevent their recurrence as far as possible, they must be prepared for a considerable additional charge. Of late years a great amount of time and consideration had been devoted to Public Works in India, and reforms of various kinds had been suggested. He was by no means adverse to reforms; but, at the same time, he could not admit that the system was as bad as it had been painted. The establishment charges in connection with the Indian Public Works Department had certainly been heavy, and the general result of the system was, that out of every £1,000,000 expended, one-fourth was absorbed by the Staff expenses; but then it was most important that the Staff of the Department should be most efficient. A great injustice had been done to the old East India Company in connection with this question. It had during the period of its government to undertake many and costly enterprizes; but since the termination of its government the debt which it left unpaid had been quadrupled, notwithstanding the various modes of increasing the Revenue which had been resorted to at the instance of administrators like Mr. Wilson, the Earl of Mayo, and Lord Northbrook. The people of India were not so impatient of taxation as many supposed, but what they objected to was continual change of taxation. The way to improve India was by not cutting the Revenue too close to Expenditure in times of peace and prosperity, but to establish a good working margin, and bring it back in times of adversity. Whether it was wise to abolish the income tax he did not take upon himself to say; but he believed it had not been fairly tried, and he thought it ought not to have been abolished until a substitute had been found—one that would tax the rich and not the poor. The rich people of India were less taxed than any other people in the world, whilst the poor were heavily taxed, more especially with regard to salt.
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I wish to say a few words, because I entirely disagree with those who say that the import duties are equitable to the traders of this country. I can scarcely agree with the statement which the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State has put before the House on the question to-night. The
  832
  policy of the Indian Government in regard to these duties is causing a good deal of uneasiness in Manchester and the neighbourhood, but certainly his assurances will do a great deal to relieve this feeling. The question I have to lay before the House as the view of Manchester men, I will state as shortly as possible, and in stating it, I shall have to go as far back as the year 1859, when the Indian Government was emerging from the troublous times of the Mutiny, and when, like other Governments in trouble, it found itself particularly short of funds. Well, it cast about to see on what it could levy such duties as would re-fill its empty coffers, and amongst other things it laid its hands on cotton goods and cotton yarn, which then, as now, were imported into India in very considerable quantities, and it levied a duty of 10 per cent on goods and 5 per cent on yarns, which duties were received with a good deal of protest by the manufacturing and commercial interests of this country, audit was pointed out very forcibly, by my hon. Friend who sits near me (Sir Thomas Bazley), that the imposition of these duties would induce the growth of a protected system of industry in India, which we have since witnessed. Through the exertions of the hon. Baronet, aided by, I think, Mr. Hadfield, who then represented Sheffield, these duties were reduced to 5 per cent on goods, and 3½ per cent on yarns, but being ad valorem duties, the tariff values being fixed when prices were considerably higher than they now are, the duties have been and now are practically 6 per cent on goods and 4 per cent on yarns. It was generally thought by those who were connected with Indian finance that these duties would not be permanent, and I am quite free to confess that they were at first imposed for fiscal purposes only, and I do not think that the able financier, who has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), Mr. James Wilson, who gave his sanction to them, would have had any idea that upon their imposition would be built up a system of protected industry such as we have seen grow up in India, since his time. But immediately on their imposition, it seemed to strike certain native capitalists that if their permanence could be secured, these duties might be turned to their advantage; and

  833
  on the principle that our extremity was their opportunity, a principle as well understood by the Natives of India as by any other people in the world, they clubbed their money together, established companies, and built mills for spinning and weaving and set to work. Well, these mills at first were singularly unsuccessful, partly owing to the great fluctuations which occurred in the price of cotton during the American War; but the duties continuing—and I wish hon. Members to observe this—the duties continuing, they were induced to persevere with their efforts, and gradually a very large industry has sprung up, as we think, under the fatherly care and protection of the Indian Government. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Beckett-Denison) thought fit to say, but I do not know with what authority, that the main reason why Indian goods were preferred to Manchester goods was, that Manchester people wilfully deteriorate their goods; but I would remind the hon. Member that Lancashire supplies India with the best and finest goods which are used there. I am not here to defend Lancashire men who may disgrace their country by such practices as the hon. Member describes; but I entirely disagree that this is the reason for the increase of this industry in India. I find that the amount of advantage the Indian manufacturer has over the English manufacturer is about 6 per cent. There is no doubt the measure of the advantage which these Indian mills enjoy in competition with their Lancashire rivals is the exact amount of duty which they escape, but which the Lancashire mills have to pay on their productions if they export them to India; and this advantage amounts at present to a sum equal to 6 per cent per annum upon the capital employed in the Indian mill. Perhaps I shall put it more clearly by stating that £100,000 invested in cotton manufacture in India will turn over goods and yarns, worth £125,000 per annum, on which, if the goods were English, £6,000 per annum in duty would be levied; but as the Indian mill escapes the duty and gets the market price for its productions, it has £6,000 a-year to the good, or 6 per cent on its capital; and this is practically guaranteed by the Indian Government by the duty. But what is the disadvantage under which the English spinner
  834
  and manufacturer labours in competition with this state of things? Those who know little of it may think lightly of it; but those who are best acquainted with the details of this question think it a most serious matter. I propose to give two instances, one of a spinning mill, and the other of a weaving concern, because in Lancashire there are many such separate businesses working for the Indian trade. I hope hon. Members will excuse me for being somewhat technical, but I wish to show the matter as it is. I will first take the case of a spinning mill containing 30,000 spindles spinning coarse yarns. It will employ £40,000 of capital, engage the services of 220 workpeople, to whom from £8,000 to £9,000 per annum will be paid in wages, and its productions will be taxed to the extent of £4,000 per annum before they can enter the Indian market. But the case of the weaving mill is much worse. A manufactory running 1,000 looms, employing £40,000 of capital—the same amount as the spinning mill just mentioned—engaging the services of 600 or 700 people, to whom £22,000 or £24,000 will be paid in wages, will have to pay a tax upon its productions, before they can enter the Indian market, amounting to £9,500 a-year. Now, if hon. Members will consider that, they will see the unfairness of this treatment towards the manufacturing interests of the country. In the one case, the disadvantage is 10 per cent upon the capital employed, or half the wages paid. In the other, it amounts to 24 per cent per annum on the capital employed, or two-fifths of the wages. Such are the disadvantages under which the English manufacturers labour in comparison with this much-vaunted protected Indian industry—disadvantages which are solely caused by the action of the Indian Government, and are entirely beyond, and quite independent of, any natural disadvantages under which we labour, if any such there be. Now, this is a serious question, and it is agitating the mercantile and manufacturing classes very considerably; and various deputations have waited upon the noble Lord the Secretary of State (the Marquess of Salisbury), who in this question holds the commercial destinies of many of our manufacturers, and some of our merchants, as it were in the hollow of his hand. They have laid their case before

  835
  him, and he has given them his answer. He has told the gentlemen who waited upon him that he thinks they greatly over-rate the effect of the duties in inducing competition. Now, no one knows much more of the principles which regulate finance than the noble Lord; no one certainly in the other House knows better than the noble Lord what is the amount of inducement required to coax capital to flow into new undertakings. The noble Lord has been Chairman of one of our great railway companies, and as such it has been his business to inform himself on these points; but does he seriously mean to say that he thinks the practical guarantee of a preference dividend of 6 per cent per annum by the Indian Government to the Bombay spinner is no inducement to capitalists to place their money in such undertakings? Because that is what it practically comes to, and had not the deputation which waited upon the noble Lord been mostly composed of "grave and reverend signiors" I should have suspected the noble Lord of mildly chaffing them, when he told them what was exactly tantamount to saying so. But the noble Lord went on still further, and said that we must expect competition, and that any interference by the Indian Government would be hardly fair. We do expect competition; a fair, free, and open competition we welcome, from whatever source it may come; but this is no fair, or free, or open competition. It is not competition we object to; it is the weight we have to carry in the race, which gets heavier and heavier to bear the longer we have to carry it. But the noble Lord said it would hardly be fair to the Indian Government to interfere. We think it grossly unfair, and we think that this interference should cease at the earliest possible time. At the end of one of the interviews, the noble Lord is reported to have said that if these duties were really protective they were indefensible. Now, I have tried to show that they are protective, and I hope that next year when I bring this question forward, the House will agree that, being protective, they are, as the noble Lord says, indefensible, and ought to be repealed. It appears to me, further, that this protective policy which we support in India is not to the advantage of that dependency, because it taxes the poorest of the people in order to put money into the pockets of those
  836
  who are already rich; it extracts a much larger sum from the people than it passes into the Exchequer; it is, undoubtedly, disadvantageous to this country; and it is contrary to that Tree Trade policy which we advocate in every foreign country, and which is at the root of all commercial success.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he must congratulate the noble Lord the Under Secretary for India and the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) upon the good attendance of hon. Members, considering the advanced period of the Session and the heat of the weather. It was a better House than he expected, and than he saw five years ago when the attraction was much greater. The hon. Member for Wick, with his strong head, said this country was governing India with too strong a hand. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was anxious that justice should be done to the people of India. With regard to the opium trade, the Government of this country raised a large revenue from it, and by a system that was one of the most outrageous and disgraceful that was ever perpetrated and forced upon a people. When they came to consider the 200,000,000 of people in India and the 400,000,000 in China, who were all God's subjects, it would surely be wiser not to impose this opium upon them, and to turn the Chinese into allies. As it was this policy of ours made us hated throughout China and in other parts of the East, and he was not sure that it had not a great deal to do with the complications that had taken place in our relations with Burmah. From what he heard, the merchants of this country were pushing this opium trade too much upon the people of India and China. If he asked for information on the subject he could not get it. If a war broke out, and he asked for information, they said—"Oh, oh! it is not for the interest of the service to give you information at this moment;" and when the war was over, if you asked for information they said—"Oh, oh! the war is all over now, and the information would be of no use to you." He would now refer the attention of the Committee to the opinions of eminent medical men respecting the effects of opium on the human frame. The late Sir Benjamin Brodie, a distinguished physician, described its effects on the constitution as most injurious, an opinion which other medical men also

  837
  entertained and expressed; and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had that day heard from a gentleman who had been 30 years in China most distressing consequences resulting from our forcing the opium trade on the Chinese; and yet those who dealt in the article said, when remonstrated with—" Oh, the Chinese will have it." "We do not make wickedness—we only live by it," was the motto upon the rogue's escutcheon all over the world; but it was a disgraceful motto for this country to adopt. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) must say that it was a disgrace to England that her merchants should carry on such a trade. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that it brought in revenue, and that spirits brought in a large revenue; but with regard to the Chinese, he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was sure that if England went on in the way she had been going on by forcing the opium trade upon the people of that Empire, some very serious disaster would befall her in the East. He remembered a Resolution having been moved in this House on the subject of the opium trade with China, and that the then Prime Minister made a speech against the Resolution, and said no action could be taken in the question of the duty resulting from opium without inquiry. He would like that the noble Lord in his reply should give some hope that he would institute a careful inquiry, with a view to see whether the evils which had been condemned did not really exist. He feared the system would involve us in trouble, difficulty, and perhaps bloodshed, unless it was speedily put a stop to. When that time came, those responsible for Indian affairs would be to blame who had not carefully and calmly looked into the matter, and done something to stop a system which was not only degrading to our national honour, but most injurious to the best interests of this country.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he was afraid, from what they had heard from the present and from the late Under Secretary for India, that there was very little chance of the Indian Budget being brought on in the early part of the Session. Under those circumstances, a private Member would have to take the matter into his own hands, and, as the Session went on, raise separate discussions upon each of the topics which it
  838
  concerned. In that case, every one who had paid any attention to Indian affairs would agree with him that there was no subject more worthy of careful consideration by Parliament than the functions discharged by the Indian Council. No one had a higher opinion of Members of the Council than he had, but the Council itself was the greatest disappointment in connection with the Government of India. Why the able men who were Members of the Council had not done more to protect the finances of India he could not understand. It had been conclusively shown by the hon. Members for Cambridge and Kirkcaldy that nothing but confusion arose by separating ordinary from extraordinary expenditure. The most serious danger connected with our Public Works policy was, that we did not understand what works would pay; and if we were to embark on a great public policy of that sort, one of the first things we ought to do was not to carry out those works simply by engineers of English training, but to bring to bear upon them the ability which existed amongst the Natives, among whom there had been some of the most accomplished engineers in the world. As to irrigation works, the noble Lord must have forgotten the statement of the Secretary of State at Manchester, who said there was scarcely an irrigation work which returned a fair interest upon outlay, except irrigation works based on native undertakings. The noble Lord further said that irrigation works were accompanied by serious disadvantages. Many of those works had been so unskilfully constructed that good land had been converted by them into morass, and it was now necessary to drain this land. Moreover, the Natives would often not use the water when brought to their doors, and it had been proposed to make them pay an irrigation tax whether they used it or not. At present, confuse the matter as we liked with regard to ordinary and extraordinary expenditure, we could not get over the fact that by the policy which was now being pursued we were adding to the Debt of India at the rate of £3,500,000 a-year; and these works, which might not prove remunerative, would pile up serious financial difficulty in a country where an additional tax even of £1,000,000 could not be imposed without causing great discontent. In conclusion,

  839
  he must be allowed to express his determination that if the Government did not move for the re-appointment of the Select Committee next Session, he should certainly take upon himself the responsibility of doing so.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, that he trusted the success of that night's experiment would not embolden Her Majesty's Government always to bring in the Indian Budget so near the 12th August. It had certainly been one of the best attended, and also one of the most interesting Indian discussions, to which he had listened on any occasion of the kind. The points on which he thought the Committee was most to be congratulated were the ex parte, but very clear and able statement of the Manchester case by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross); that portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), which dealt with the unjustly light taxation of the wealthier classes in India; and the excellent speech of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India. The things in that speech which give him (Mr. Grant Duff) most satisfaction were the remarks about the import duties, the announcement as to the good terms on which the recent loan had been raised, and the hope that was held out of a speedy end to the Salt Line—one of the most disgraceful anomalies in administration which existed in any civilized country. With reference to a remark which fell from the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) it was his (Mr. Grant Duff's) impression that the hon. Member altogether overrated the genius hitherto shown by the Natives of India for engineering. They had shown very great genius at many periods of their history for architecture, but by no means much genius for engineering. [Mr. FAWCETT: The Madras Irrigation Works.] His remarks applied to the Native genius for engineering—that was, of course, the Native acting under Native, not under European superintendence. In conclusion, he would say that if the noble Lord had any figures which would confirm the impression which he (Mr. Grant Duff) received in India, that the Rajpootana system of State Railways was promising to pay extremely well, he (Mr. Grant Duff) would be glad if they could be produced on this or some other occasion.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he wished to say a few words in explanation and by way of reply. His hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Smollett) had referred to the question of irrigation works, and had given one or two instances in which such works had lamentably failed. If the Government were going to construct irrigation works on the same principle as those to which he had alluded, his argument would be valid: but it was in consequence of that failure that the Government were constructing irrigation works on a different system. The hon. Member for Hackney had said that his (Lord George Hamilton's) figures did not agree with certain statements which had been made by the Secretary of State for India. His (Lord George Hamilton's) figures were taken from a Return which had only just arrived from India, and which was, therefore, more accurate than any statement which had been previously made. He fully admitted that the expenditure with regard to Public Works in India must be carefully looked into. If the irrigation works did not pay, of course they ought to be stopped; but the Government had reason to believe that those works would pay. The hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Beckett-Denison) had asked by what means Staff officers who were drawing pay and doing no duty would be got rid of. Upon that subject what the Government had done was this—they had allowed those officers to retire on the pension to which they were entitled, and, in addition, to receive a sum in commutation for the Colonel's allowances, to which, after 38 years, they would be entitled. As to Cooper's Hill College, he admitted that its growth must be carefully watched. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had pointed out, the unequal incidence of taxation in India was the one great blot upon the system. If the hon. Member could suggest any plan by means of which the rich and poor could be called upon to contribute in exact proportion to their fair liability, he would promise that it should be very carefully considered by the India Office and by the Government in India. To the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross), he would say that, without entering into a discussion upon the alterations of the tariff, he was quite certain that

  841
  the Secretary of State would not sacrifice any legitimate sources of revenue merely in deference to a cry got up in England. With regard to the relations between India and Burmah, referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), he could only say that any difficulties which had arisen were not due to the opium traffic, and that, as time progressed, the likelihood of a satisfactory settlement became more and more certain. The morality or immorality of the opium traffic was not legitimately under discussion; but, as the question had been raised, he must be permitted to say that, unless stronger reasons than had yet been urged were urged against the traffic, the Government would not be justified in giving up for an idea so important a source of revenue. With regard to the Amendment which had been moved, it was no new policy which the Indian Government were now carrying out. The Indian Government were now constructing Public Works under far more favourable conditions than during recent years, and if ordinary care was taken he believed none of the disastrous results which the hon. Member for Cambridge had predicted were likely to take place.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, the Amendment, if carried, would practically be a Vote of Censure upon Lord Northbrook, as well as upon the Government, for it was his policy they were carrying out; and he thought the House would hesitate to pass a Vote of Censure upon a Viceroy who had shown so much ability in the Government of India, and had brought it through such a crisis as the late Famine.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, scarcely a single word had been said of Lord Northbrook, except in approbation of him, and it was not fair, at the last moment, to put such an interpretation upon the Amendment, and say that it was a vote of Want of Confidence in Lord Northbrook. He wished simply to express by his vote an opinion as to the way of keeping the accounts and the financial policy of the Indian Government, and nothing was further from the intention of himself and those who agreed with him to express anything like a personal censure.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 66: Majority 45.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That it appears by the Accounts laid before this House that the total Revenue of India for the year ending the 31st day of March 1874 was £49,598,253; the charges in India, including the collection of the Revenue, Interest on Debt, and Public works ordinary, were £42,094,995; the charges in England (including £1,156,535, the value of Stores supplied to India) were £7,873,574; the Guaranteed Interest on the Capital of Railway and other Companies, in India and in England, deducting net Traffic Receipts, was £1,437,352, making a total charge for the same year of £51,405,921; and there was an excess of Expenditure over Income in that year amounting to £1,807,668; that the charge for Public Works extraordinary was £3,553,307, and that, including that charge, the excess of Expenditure over Income was £5,360,975.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported upon Wednesday.

HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.— [BILL 164.].
(Sir S. Drummond Wolff, Sir Charles Legard, Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Callender, Mr. Ryder.)
HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.— [BILL 164.].
  THIRD READING.

    ADJORENED DEBATE FURTHER ADJOURNED.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th August], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, it was hopeless to go on with the Bill during the present Session. He would, therefore, move that the debate on the third reading be adjourned for one week.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Adjourned Debate be further adjourned till Monday next."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
    MR. MONKsaid, it would be much better to take the usual course, and to move that the Order be discharged. He would move an Amendment to that intent.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the said Order be discharged,"—(Mr. Monk,)—instead thereof.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL,— [Lords.]— [BILL 110.]
  (Mr. Beresford Hope.)
  INCREASE OF THE EPISCOPATE BILL,— [Lords.]— [BILL 110.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEmoved that the House go into Committee on this Bill on Wednesday next.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Beresford Hope.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEmoved, as an Amendment, that the House go into Committee that day week.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Wednesday," in order to insert the word "Monday,"—(sir Charles W. Bilke,)—instead thereof.
    Question put, "That the word 'Wednesday' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 27: Majority 23.
    MR. EDWARD JENKINSmoved that the House should resolve itself into the said Committee on Friday.
    MR. SPEAKERruled that this Amendment could not now be put.
    Main Question, "That this House will, upon Wednesday next, resolve itself into the said Committee," put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 24: Majority 29.
    Committee deferred till Wednesday.

    PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, as he found there was no Business on the Paper for to-morrow, he would beg to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn until 2 o'clock on Wednesday.
    MR. O'LEARYsaid, he must oppose the Motion, because it had been settled by the Government that the House was
    844
    to meet that day (Tuesday); and, under that impression, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick had intended to address the House that day, and would leave town on Wednesday. He was surprised at the deviation of the Government from its promise.
    MR. W. H. SMITHexplained, that when he had made the announcement that the House would sit at its usual hour to-morrow, he was under the impression that the Royal Assent would be given by commission to certain Bills; but it was now found that assent could not be given. Seeing that there was no Business of any kind on the Paper for to-morrow, he trusted that the House would adjourn, at it rising, until Wednesday.
    House at rising to adjourn till Wednesday, at Two of the clock.

    SELECT COMMITTEES.
    Ordered, That every Select Committee having power to send for persons, papers, and records, shall have leave to report their opinion and observations, together with the Minutes of Evidence taken before them, to the House, and also to make a Special Report of any matters which they may think fit to bring to the notice of the House.
    Ordered, That the said Resolution be made a Standing Order of the House.—(Mr. Raikes.)

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL [Lords].
    Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to be considered forthwith.
    Resolved, That this House doth agree to the Amendments made by the Lords to the Amendments made by this House; and do not insist on the Amendments to which the Lords have disagreed.

    REGIMENTAL EXCHANGES REGULATIONS.
    Address for "Copy of the Royal Warrant and of the Regulations respecting Exchanges between Officers of the Army, made subsequent to the passing of the Regimental Exchanges Act, 1875."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)

    UNION WORKHOUSES.
    Return ordered, "of the number of men, women, and children in the several Union Workhouses on the 1st day of January 1875 (or on any previous date for which the Return could be made), distinguishing the number professing to belong to the Church of England and the number belonging to all other religious communities."—(Mr. Hubbard.)
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Wednesday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Local Authorities Loans* (276); Remission of Penalties* (275); Sheriff Substitute (Scotland)* (281).
Second Reading—National School Teachers (Ireland) (258); Unseaworthy (Ships* (265); Public Works Loans* (266); National School Teachers Residences (Ireland)* (274).
Committee—Report—Sanitary Law (Dublin) Amendment* (259).
Third Reading—Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act Amendment* (252); Expiring Laws Continuance* (260); East India Home Government (Appointments)* (261); Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* (262); Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, Amendment* (236), and passed.

REFORMATORIES.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYmoved for a—
  "Return of the number of committals to Reformatories during the last two years by justices in petty sessions; stating the ages of the children, the nature of the offences, and the duration of the sentences."
  The noble Earl said, he moved for this table in consequence of the proceedings at Spalding, which excited so much attention, and of proceedings subsequent to those. He alluded to a case at Alcester last week, in which the bench of magistrates sentenced a little girl to a month's imprisonment and five years in a reformatory for placing a pebble on the line. The little girl stated that she had done it for the pleasure of hearing it go "crunch." Such, at least, was the result as reported in the papers.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for Return of the number of committals to Reformatories during the last two years by justices in petty sessions; stating the ages of the children, the nature of the offences, and the duration of the sentences.—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)

FRENCH PROTESTANT SERVICE, CANTERBURY CATHEDRAL.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYrose to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether any scheme has been prepared by the Charity Commissioners for diverting to other objects the funds at present available for
  726
  a French Protestant Service in Canterbury Cathedral? His Question divided itself into three branches. He wished to know whether there was any such scheme; whether the Charity Commissioners had the power, without control from any higher authority, to carry such a scheme into effect; and whether, if such a scheme was intended to be prepared, an opportunity would be given to those who felt an interest in the subject to make known their sentiments on the subject. Prom the time of the Reformation downwards there had been in the Canterbury Cathedral a service for French Protestants conducted in the French language, and it had continued up to the present time. This had been under the superintendence of the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral, and with the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. A large number of French Protestants sought refuge here during the reign of Edward VI., and subsequently in the reign of Elizabeth, when the Massacre of St. Bartholomew occurred. In the reign of the latter Monarch provision was made for the performance of a French Service in the crypt of the Cathedral. While he granted that the number of persons attending that service was now very small, and while he granted that the number of French Protestants residing at Canterbury had very much diminished since the service was founded, yet the service was an institution which kept up a connection between the French Protestant Church and the Church of England, and therefore it appeared to many persons to be very undesirable that the service should be unnecessarily interfered with. The numbers which attended the service were very few; but the same might be said in respect of the services in many of the churches of the City of London. Again, it might be urged that the clergyman did not reside in Canterbury, but came there to perform the service; but he did not know that the same objection might not be urged in the case of some parish churches. In these days, when there was a widespread desire to preserve any old building which was a link of connection between the past and the present, it did seem undesirable that there should be any unnecessary interference with the French Service in Canterbury Cathedral. He had said so much in explanation of the Question

  727
  which he begged to put to the noble Duke.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he had to state that no scheme such as that referred to by the most rev. Prelate had been prepared, but one was under consideration; and he thought the most rev. Prelate would admit that the subject was one which did require to be inquired into. The Charity Commissioners had asked the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury to assist them in the matter, and he was sure they would pay every attention to any representation coming from the most rev. Prelate. The need of inquiry was shown by some facts elicited in 1872, when it appeared that the English afternoon service was read in French by an English layman, who received £40 a-year. The number of worshippers who attended was seven; of whom one spoke French, another spoke it imperfectly, and the remainder were entirely ignorant of that language. The French pastor attended once a month, when the congregation was larger. That reverend gentleman received £60 a-year. He thought after that the necessity of something being done would be admitted; but he could assure the most rev. Prelate that nothing would be proposed without full consideration.

  APPELLATE BUSINESS OF THIS HOUSE.—MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD REDESDALEmoved for—
  "A Return of Number of Causes effective for Hearing at the commencement of the present Session; number of Causes set down for Hearing from the commencement of the present Session up to the Whitsuntide Recess; total number of effective Causes before Whitsuntide; total number of Causes heard during the present Session, distinguishing the number of such Causes as were brought into the House during the present Session; and the number of Causes set down for Hearing subsequently to the Whitsuntide Recess."
  The noble Lord said, that having given some attention to the subject, he thought he could state that the number of causes effective for hearing in their Lordships' House at the commencement of the present Session was 23, the number set down for hearing from the commencement of the present Session up to the Whitsuntide Recess 24, making the total number of effective causes before Whitsuntide 47. The total number of causes
  728
  heard during the present Session was 47. Of these 47 causes, 7 were brought into the House during the present Session, and the number of causes set down for hearing subsequently to the Whitsuntide Recess was 14.

NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 258.)
(The Lord President.)
NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 258.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was unnecessary for him at this time of day to occupy their Lordships with remarks on the subject of the advantages of education. These might now be taken for granted, and he thought there was quite as general a concurrence of opinion as to the necessity of having good teachers if you wanted satisfactory results to follow from a system of national education. The Bill now before their Lordships had immediate reference to teachers, and it came up from the other House of Parliament under circumstances rather peculiar in the case of any Bill, but more especially so in the case of one applying solely to Ireland. A complete unanimity prevailed in respect of the Bill in the other House of Parliament. He was convinced that if the Irish Members had not felt satisfied that the measure was one which would be of advantage to Ireland, it would not have passed through that other House without some—not to say considerable—opposition. He was afraid, however, that the unanimity which prevailed in "another place" with reference to this Bill did not extend itself to their Lordships' House, for his noble Friend be-hind him (the Earl of Donoughmore) had given Notice of his intention to move its rejection. He thought the principle that there should be local assistance in aid of Imperial grants for the purposes of national education was one which could not be controverted. That from the first this had been intended in Ireland was clear from the letter of the late Lord Derby, issued at the time of the foundation of the Irish national system, because in that letter it was pointed out that the schoolmaster should be paid mainly by the district, the State adding a gratuity. The fact, however, was that

  729
  85 per cent of the cost of national education in Ireland was now paid by the State, only 15 per cent of that cost being raised by local efforts. That was a very much larger State contribution than anything we had a notion of in reference to national education in England, and he really did not see why the principle of helping those who helped themselves should not be applied to Ireland as well as to this country in the matter of education. In 1868 a Royal Commission recommended that attention should be given to the subject of local contributions to education in Ireland, and he could not help thinking that that would be legislation in the right and proper direction. He was at a loss to know what objections could be urged against this measure If it was objected that it was a question which ought to have been dealt with earlier in the Session, he would only point out that some Bills must give precedence to others, and that it would be impossible to fix a period in the Session after which no legislation should take place. He had, however, to remind their Lordships that so early as the month of March his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant gave utterance clearly and unmistakably in "another place" to the views which were embodied in the Bill now before their Lordships' House. It might be said that the Bill could have been discussed in Ireland if it had been brought forward earlier; but his answer to that was that the way in which to obtain a full and fair discussion for the Bill in Ireland was to pass it. When it became law it would be at once the duty of the Local Government Board in Ireland to write to every Board of Guardians in Ireland to point out to them what they could do under this Bill, and thus the whole subject would be taken up and discussed. He understood that another objection to the Bill was founded on the allegation that the incidence of taxation which it proposed was not the right one—namely, that the levy for the purposes of education ought to be in the county cess, and not in the poor rate as proposed by the Bill. He believed, however, that the proposition in the Bill was the right one, because when levied in the poor rate the sums raised for educational purposes would fall one-half on the owner and one-half on the occupier, while if they were levied in the county
  730
  cess they would fall entirely on the occupier. The Bill had one peculiarity which ought to commend itself to their Lordships—namely, that it was entirely permissive in its character. The Boards of Guardians might avail themselves of it or not. If the Guardians resolved that they would contribute out of the poor rates one-third of the full amount to the payment of the teachers in national schools, they would do so in the manner provided by one of the clauses in the Bill; and if, after a certain time, they declined to go on, they could give notice to rescind the resolution which they had previously come to. There was a clause at the end of the Bill which dealt with teachers of Poor Law Union national schools, and which would be the means of bringing them within its purview. He felt that this was a step in the right direction, and therefore hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I have not the excuse of having previously come forward on any matter connected with the National Board for presenting myself now, but hope for a few moment's indulgence on the ground of great interest; I might say, in the belief that some of your Lordships, who hold bygone days in remembrance, will allow the claim—an hereditary interest in the main question of primary education in Ireland. And although my observations on the proposal before the House will not be in its favour, or in accordance with the views of the promoters of this Bill, still I can confidently state that they do not contain solely my own opinion in the matter. From opportunities I have had of consulting those who are interested in this question, I am happy to find the objections which I feel it my duty to bring forward to-night very generally entertained. My noble Friend the noble Duke is quite right in supposing that many consider—and that is an opinion in which I fully concur—that a measure of such vital importance which requires such delicate handling, and in dealing with which any mistake would lead to such serious consequences, should not have been introduced into your Lordships' House at this period of the Session,

  731
  at a time when it is impossible for many who might be desirous of stating their views to come forward and do so. There is not, I should hope, a single Member of your Lordships' House who would not testify to the extreme difficulty of dealing with any matter connected with education in Ireland, and any hasty or ill-judged step must inevitably lead to present dissatisfaction, and largely increased difficulty in the future. Those of your Lordships who have studied this Bill will have perceived that its object is to enable Boards of Guardians to put their unions under voluntary contribution to results fees in the proportion of one-third of the sum granted annually by Government by way of results fees to such union. Now, I would ask your Lordships to turn your attention to this matter from two points of view—first, as to what probability there is of Boards of Guardians availing themselves of these facilities; second, as to what the effect would be in the event of their doing so. With regard to the first point, my Lords, I confess I am no believer in the likelihood of these provisions being made use of by Boards of Guardians. An honorary member and attendant of two Boards myself, I hear so many disputes about high rates—such discussions on adding to the salary of the master, the doctor, or the matron—such anxious enquiries about the lowest tender when any new building or necessary alteration is projected, that I despair of Guardians voluntarily subjecting their unions to further imposition. Moreover, I have gone so far as to avail myself of such local opinion as could be procured in a very limited time, and hold in my hand a letter from the clerk of one of my neighbouring unions, from which, as it describes fairly the feeling on the subject, I will take the liberty of quoting. He says that the clogheen Board, in common with the other unions of Ireland, will oppose the measure. And I am further confirmed by this letter, in what I previously heard was the case, that the Cork Guardians had passed a protest against the scheme, which was being circulated among other Boards with a view to its adoption. My Lords, I believe our poor teachers would get very little benefit from this Bill, that for the purpose intended it is almost useless, and in a case like this, where a large and impressionable population is
  732
  interested, and is eagerly watching the action of the Government, ready to judge whether it is decided or halfhearted, vigorous or lukewarm. I would submit that no measure at all would have been preferable to one which must fail in its results, and must remain, to all intents and purposes, a dead letter. But I would now ask your Lordships to turn your attention to the second point to which I alluded—what would be the effect in the event of Boards of Guardians consenting to accept the provisions of this measure? It is in this that what I believe to be the fatal fault of the Bill lies, both as regards present consequences, and with reference to its influence on the course of future legislation in Irish educational matters. I would earnestly ask your Lordships to look back upon the history of the National Board from its foundation to the present time, and to note the constant disputes upon subjects relating to religious education which arose even in the earlier days. Your Lordships are aware that since the year 1858 the Roman Catholic priesthood have forbidden candidates of that denomination to avail themselves of the system of training teachers offered in Dublin, and I need only refer your Lordships to the Report of the Commission of 1870 for further confirmation as to this religious difficulty. In spite of all this, my Lords, this system of education has grown until it has become recognizable as a national system—an imperfect one, perhaps—but still one that affords facilities to 1,000,000 of Irish children. Consequently, any revival of the old disputes, especially one brought about by means authorized by the Legislature, would be far more dangerous, more fatal to the cause of Irish education than any difference that might have arisen in the earlier times. But what does this Bill do, my Lords? It converts every contributory Board of Guardians meeting into an arena for sectarian disputes, and those of a most virulent character, if we are to judge by discussions within our own experience, on topics far less calculated to excite ill-feeling. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in a speech the other night upon the Irish Education Vote, said, this argument might carry some weight if the rate proposed had been a compulsory one; but I should have thought that the very fact of the process being voluntary would give rise

  733
  to more discussion than were it otherwise, for everyone-would deem himself at liberty to advance his opinion on the advisability of the step or the contrary. In the other case, the very compulsion takes away the incentive to discussion on matters of detail. I believe, therefore, my Lords, that the present consequences of this Bill will be dispute and dissatisfaction—that in the future insurmountable difficulty. Every well-wisher of the cause—and I trust they are not a few—must look forward to the time when the entire question of Irish education will be dealt with, not in the spirit of party, not in the heat of religious acrimony or sectarian impulse, but on the broad ground of mutual concession and conciliation. Our national system has attained such dimensions as to give us some hope in looking forward to this end. But throw down this bone of contention—raise up, revivify, and localize these old disputes, and you not only create present heart-burnings, but retard the process for years. It is for this, my Lords, that I protest against this hasty legislation—this mockery of dealing with a great issue. I shall say no more upon the subject, but will leave the issue in your Lordships' hands. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, that considerable differences of opinion prevailed amongst the Members of that House connected with Ireland on this subject, and it was generally believed amongst them that the Bill would not be proceeded with this Session. It was true that the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the House of Commons shadowed forth in March last what might be the provisions of some such measure; but it was felt that the Bill would share the fate of others that had been announced early in the Session. On the 9th of August, 1869, on a Motion to consider on the following day the Commons' Amendments to the Parochial Schools (Scotland) Bill, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, in moving an Amendment to that Motion, used these words—
  734
  "The practice of proceeding with important measures at a period when the larger number of the Members of the House had conceived that their duties were over, and that they might retire to the country, was a practice that required to he checked if the House wished to preserve its privileges.… Their Lordships were aware that he had always attended to this matter not at all as a party question, but with the view of watching the privileges of the House and securing fair deliberation. At one time, indeed, he induced their Lordships to take the course referred to by Mr. Gladstone in the speech he had quoted—namely, to resolve that after a certain day no Bill should be read a second time; and though in deference to a feeling of jealousy on the part of the Commons he gave up pressing for that Order, he did so on the understanding that the principle of it would he adhered to by the Governments of the day; "—[3 Hansard, cxcviii. 1473–4.]
  and on the Motion of the noble Lord their Lordships resolved, by a vote of 55 to 43, not to consider the Amendments to the Bill. Several noble Lords who had made themselves well acquainted with the system of national education in Ireland were now absent, and he submitted that the arguments he had just quoted from the speech of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had great force on this occasion. This question was of more importance than anyone would be induced to believe from the statement of the noble Duke in proposing the second reading of the Bill. It revived the whole question of national education in Ireland, and of the extent and proportions in which that system should be supported by Imperial, national, or local taxation. The Boards of Guardians were unfit bodies to decide from time to time whether an educational rate should be levied, as strong feelings existed in Ireland on the education question, and these would find utterance at every Board of Guardians when the provisions of this Bill came to be discussed by those Boards. The effects on the schoolmasters themselves would be very bad. In a contributory union one would receive an increase to his salary, while another, in perhaps an adjoining Union which was not contributory, would not receive such an increase. Then what became of the position of a school teacher in a contributory Union which afterwards, by the action of the Guardians, became non - contributory? What would be his feelings when he lost his increase of pay? Granting that the school teachers ought to get an increase of pay, still, he asserted, the

  735
  mode proposed in this Bill was not the proper mode of giving it to them. It was too late in the Session to raise the question or to consider in what proportion payment should be by results, and the other great questions affecting education in Ireland. Under this Bill the result fees would be unlimited, and the rate, which was a Union rate, would be unlimited. He submitted that their Lordships' House should not be committed by such a Bill, read a second time on the 9th of August, and in the absence of a great majority of the Irish Peers.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, he was unable to read private letters to their Lordships on this subject, and therefore could not give chapter and verse for the assertion, but he asked their Lordships to believe that he spoke on good grounds when he asserted that this Bill would not have passed unopposed in the House of Commons except for the belief that it would be dropped in the House of Lords. In his experience he found that Irish Poor Law Guardians were not inferior to English Guardians; but of one thing he felt quite certain, that the former were averse to responsibilities being cast upon them which were foreign to the purpose of the Poor Law. Not only would they have to levy rates for the payment of the registration of Parliamentary voters, for the return of jurors, for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages, and also for carrying out sanitary regulations, which they did at present, but after this Bill became law they would also be obliged to tax the ratepayers with amounts for educational purposes before paying over anything for the relief of the poor. That was one of the most extraordinary features of the Bill. That the national school teachers themselves were not satisfied with the Bill was evident from a letter which had appeared in The Times. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment had expressed his belief that the Bill would be inoperative. He did not concur in that view. On the contrary, he feared that in one direction it would be too operative. At present a great number of the Irish national school teachers taught very curious and mischievous history, and took their own political information from revolutionary teachers. They taught their pupils that the Catholic aborigines of the island were
  736
  saints, and that the Protestant Saxons who came into the country were demons. Such histories did a great deal of mischief and induced disloyalty to Her Majesty; and he believed, if true histories were substituted for them, the people of Ireland would place their mouths in the dust, and would cry, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants—" Peccavi. I have sinned against thee, my brother." Well, the result of this Bill would be that in every electoral division of a Union there would be efforts to turn out respectable Guardians and put in their place persons whose sole mission would be to increase the salaries of the teachers. He was as anxious as anybody that the teachers should be paid properly; but he doubted whether it was wise to increase their salaries until we had further results from the national system. He hoped their Lordships would not allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, there was a great deal of good in the Bill and much harm, and he scarcely knew whether he should be pleased to see the Bill passed in its present shape or not. No one could doubt that the pay of the Irish national teachers was too small. He approved the principle of paying the teachers according to results. Indeed, he went further, and held that they ought not to acknowledge teachers at all except by shown results; and he was afraid that if a Government Inspector of schools went through Ireland applying the English standard the results would be found far from satisfactory. The fault in the machinery of this Bill was that it treated Irish Boards of Guardians as if they were composed like English Boards of Guardians; but that was an entire mistake. Speaking for a considerable district in Ireland with which he was connected, he could not help saying that the constitution of Boards of Guardians was by no means such as to render those bodies fit for exercising the powers given to them by this Bill. The Guardians were, generally speaking, small farmers, having had little education themselves, and very indifferent judges of what was good or bad in matters of that sort. He should be very sorry to see a bone of contention—for the power given under this Bill would be little else—thrown among them. If the schoolmaster was a Roman Catholic the vote would go one way; if

  737
  he was a Protestant it would go the other way. He thought that the National Education Board ought to have a veto; and they might also have the power of initiating an Educational Vote where the Guardians did not take the initiative themselves. He thought, upon the whole, that the Bill might fairly be postponed till next Session.
  LORD CARLINGFORDdid not, as an Irish landlord, feel that alarm with which some noble Lords looked to the operation of this Bill. He thought they had some reason to complain of the time when this Bill was brought up, and he was not able to say that he very much admired the particular plan of obtaining support to Irish national schools from local rates; but he did not apprehend the faction fights and party religious feuds in Irish Boards of Guardians which they seemed to expect. He thought it much more likely that in most cases the Bill would be a dead letter. He had not much apprehension as to the discovery and patronage of Fenian teachers by Boards of Guardians. It would not be in the power of Boards of Guardians to patronize an inefficient teacher, because he had taken the means of ingratiating himself with them, because the payments to be made were for results, and it would be only efficient teachers who would have any chance of obtaining a contribution from the rates. Feeling strongly what a scandal it was that the amount of local contributions under any form towards Irish popular education had been so small, he could not make up his mind to oppose a Bill, however imperfect it might be in other respects, which made a step in the way of experiment towards curing that great evil. It was lamentable that Irish landlords, speaking generally, should not think it their duty to give pecuniary support and otherwise to schools in which the children of their tenants might be taught as was thought necessary in this country. But such was the fact, and the result of that state of things was that out of the whole cost of Irish popular education only 15 per cent was produced by school fees and subscriptions together. Thus the position of Irish national education was in a most unsatisfactory state. Along with this Bill the Government had persuaded the House of Commons to grant a fresh boon from the Imperial purse; an additional sum of
  738
  £60,000 a-year was to be given as a bonus irrespective of results to the Irish national school teachers. He was bound to say he regarded that bonus simply as a sop to the Irish national school teachers. Considering the many disadvantages under which they laboured it was wonderful how well they did their duty. They were an active and influential body, especially as regarded the Irish Members; but this Bill did not solve any of the real difficulties of national education in Ireland. It did not carry further that system of results which, so far as it had been tried, had worked admirably. Above all it left the training of Irish teachers, to the importance of which he had alluded on a former occasion, untouched; it left Irish national education in a lamentable state of deficiency, and this he held to be a great cause of discontent in that country. If they were to have at any future time a system of rating in Ireland for the support of schools, they must regard the wishes of the Irish people and establish good training schools.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, as the noble Lord (the Earl of Limerick) had appealed to an opinion of his with respect to passing Bills sent up at a late period of the Session, he wished to state that he had always held that it was wrong for their Lordships to agree to any measure of serious importance which they had not time to consider, and for which there was no urgent necessity. What had their Lordships heard on this occasion? Every Irishman who had spoken, with the exception of the noble Lord who had just sat down, had denounced the measure, and that noble Lord had said it was a very bad one. ["No!"] He understood the noble Lord to say that the Bill was not one which, on the whole, it was desirable to adopt; but because it was a step towards doing something favourable to the teachers of Ireland, he would not oppose it.
  LORD CARLINGFORDexplained that what he said was, that as this was a mode of trying the experiment of obtaining local aid for the Irish schools he would support it, though it was not the mode he would have chosen.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, as the Bill was one for giving something to Irish teachers, the noble Lord would vote for it; but he did not approve of the manner

  739
  in which this was to be done. Their Lordships ought not to be hasty in passing such a measure, but ought to consider it fairly on its merits, and in the last week of the Session that could not be done. He hoped that what had been said would induce Her Majesty's Government not to proceed with the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his noble Friend who had moved the rejection of this measure had taken a very strong and unusual course. This Bill dealt mainly with a question of taxation—of local taxation, no doubt—but still of taxation, and on such matters, in the first instance, at all events, the action must commence with the other House of Parliament. It should be remembered also that this Bill had not been brought hurriedly before the House of Commons; it had been announced deliberately in that House early in the Session; and Members from Ireland, who were not always of one mind, showed in this question an absolute unanimity. There was no division on the Bill, no alteration made in it, and not a word said against it that he had heard of. That was a circumstance which distinguished this Bill from those to which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had referred. He quite subscribed to the opinion that Bills—brought up at a late period of the Session, should be treated with great caution by their Lordships; but, in this case, there were two considerations on the other side which should be taken into account. One was, that the Bill was one of which ample notice had been given; the other, that it was not a measure involving many details. The Bill, as he had said, had been announced in the other House of Parliament a considerable time since; it had been made the basis of the financial arrangements of the Irish Education Vote—or, at all events, the supplement or complement of those arrangements. Then this was not a question of detail, for the Bill was one which must be accepted or rejected at once. Further, it might be judged from the attendance of noble Lords connected with Ireland that there was no lack of interest in the Bill, as there was no lack of opportunity of objecting to it. There was no doubt that the position of the teachers in the national schools of Ireland interfered seriously with the efficient working of the national system of education in that
  740
  country. With the inadequate pay which they received we could not command the services of teachers in whose hands we should be content to leave the education of Ireland. Was not the matter, therefore, urgent? The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees was of opinion that there was nothing urgent in the matter. He (the Lord Chancellor,) on the other hand, maintained that there was, because the matter had been left over for several years, and if the education given in the national schools of Ireland was unsatisfactory, that was because the remuneration of the teachers was inadequate. His noble Friend (Viscount Lifford) referred to a letter from the Secretary to the Committee of the National School Teachers in Ireland, according to which there ought to be no payment by results, but an absolute grant from the national purse for increasing the salaries of the teachers. But that, was not a plan which Parliament would be inclined to adopt. Then, the only alternative was either to adopt the proposal of the Bill, or to make the Bill compulsory. It was said the measure would aggravate disputes at the Boards of Guardians. But it was, he believed, impossible that that could be the effect of it. Any person who knew Ireland must know that the schools in every Union were either in the hands of one denomination, or of different denominations. Where they were in the hands of one denomination, what controversies could there be? The only question that could arise was as to the economical point, whether Poor Law Guardians would wish to increase the rates. On the other hand, in Unions where there were schools of different denominations, why should any altercations arise? It was not a measure for the benefit of one denomination at the expense of another. Schools of both denominations would be benefited in the same way. It was therefore, he thought, a chimera to say that disputes would arise under this Bill; and it would be much better that well-educated scholars should be secured by a measure of this kind, rather than that there should be—besides ignorant and ill-advised teachers—ignorant and ill-trained scholars. It had been said that all the Boards of Guardians were against this permissive Bill. If so, at any rate, the Bill could do no harm, But he doubted the accuracy

  741
  of general statements of this kind. One of the first principles of representative institutions was, that for ascertaining the opinions of the represented we should look at the opinions of the representatives. Now, the Representatives of Ireland were surely the best judges of the opinions of Boards of Guardians there, and the Representatives of Ireland had concurred in supporting the Bill.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 38; Not-Contents 17: Majority 21.
  Resolved in the Affirmative:—Bill read 2* accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

  CONTENTS.

  Cairns, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bagot, L.

  Carlingford, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Richmond, D.

  Somerset, D.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  de Eos, L.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Forester, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Derby, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Granville, E.

  Hampton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Selborne, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Skelmersdale, L. [Teller.]

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Verulam, E.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Exmouth, V.

  Vernon, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Wharncliffe, L.

  Hood, V.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bath, M.

  Denman, L.

  Dunsany, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Lime-rich.) [Teller.]

  Lucan, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  de Vesci, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) [Teller.]

  Redesdale, L.

  Sherborne, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.)

  Lifford, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Churchill, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Colchester, L.

UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL.—(No. 263.)
(The lord President.)
UNSEAWORTHY SHIPS BILL.—(No. 263.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: Her Majesty's Government feel strongly the necessity of dealing with this subject. They have so felt for some period, believing that few subjects which come under the attention of Parliament require more careful consideration. I do not pretend that Her Majesty's Government monopolizes the feeling of interest which, undoubtedly, prevails on this subject. On the contrary, I am satisfied there is no Member of your Lordships' House who will not desire to carry out, as far as possible, by restrictive powers, the object contemplated by the Bill—namely, to maintain and preserve our ships in a seaworthy condition, and also to give confidence to the crews of our Merchant Shipping. Before going further, let me call attention to what has been done in the past, so that the public may not imagine that only now, for the first time, has the attention of Parliament been directed to this important subject. So long ago as 1855, after the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854, the opinion of the Law Officers of the day was taken as to whether a seaman, being called upon to sail in an unseaworthy ship, could plead this as a reasonable cause for not being compelled to form part of the crew. As might be expected, the Law Officers answered in the affirmative, and their opinion was made as public as possible by the Board of Trade at that period. Some years afterwards a Circular was issued by Sir George Grey, who invited the magistrates of seaport towns to call in the surveyors of the Board of Trade in all cases where complaints were made by seamen against the unseaworthiness of ships. More recently Bills have been prepared by various Governments. When I was at the Board of Trade I had a measure under consideration, and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bright) afterwards had a measure under his consideration, but these Bills were not passed. The subject was next taken up in 1871, when a measure was introduced and passed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford). I merely mention these facts to show that stringent Acts of Parliament have been adopted with a view to better the condition of seamen, and that the idea is not now a sudden one. Among other provisions which the Act of 1871 contained

  743
  in the interest of seamen were three of great importance. First, one-fourth of the seamen charged with desertion might call upon the Court to have the ship surveyed by the Board of Trade surveyor. Secondly, the Board of Trade were empowered to detain un-seaworthy ships. Thirdly, the Act made it a misdemeanour to send ships to sea in an unseaworthy state; it required a record of the draught of water both on the stem and stern of the ship, and it gave power to the Board of Trade to require that records of these facts should be made known. In 1872 the attention of the magistrates was called to the provisions of the Act in a very distinct manner in a Circular issued by the Home Secretary (Lord Aberdare). In the winter of 1872–3 there appeared a remarkable book which was written by Mr. Plimsoll, a Member of the other House. This book attracted considerable attention, the result being that Her Majesty, on the recommendation of then President of the Board of Trade, the noble Lord who sits opposite (Lord Carling-ford), issued a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject. The Government of the day were so anxious to deal with the matter that they did not follow the usual course of waiting till the Royal Commission had reported; but in the year 1873, while the Commission was sitting, an Act of Parliament was passed which gave the Board of Trade very much more stringent powers than had been conferred by the Act of 1871. I will describe very shortly some of the provisions of the Act of 1873, because they show that the great desire of Parliament has always been as much as possible to protect our seamen in this way. By the 12th section of 36 & 37 of the Queen, where the Board of Trade have received a complaint or have reason to believe that any British vessel is unfit to proceed to sea, they may, if they think fit, appoint some competent person to survey such ship and the machinery and cargo thereof, and to report thereon to the Board. Another section provides that the Board may, if they think fit, order any ship to be detained for the purpose of being surveyed. Then, on the receipt of the report of the person making such survey, the Board, if in their opinion the ship cannot proceed to sea without serious danger to human life, may make a further order for the
  744
  detention of the ship. Another important section of the Act says that when a ship has been detained she shall not be released by reason of her British register having been closed. There was also in the 9th section of the Act of 1873 a very important provision by which, if a sailor who is charged with desertion proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the ship is unseaworthy, the owner is bound to compensate him for the loss he has sustained by his detention. This is a step very much for the benefit of the sailor. With regard to the loss of life which has been so frequently-referred to in the debates and discussions on this subject, and which we all so deeply deplore, I may remark that nothing can be more fallacious and illusory than the returns of the number of the number of persons who perish by the losses of ships at sea. The reason of this is that you cannot get at a proper average of deaths. You cannot show that the number of deaths has been in any way caused by the unseaworthiness of the ships, because a lamentable loss of life is caused by the going down of large vessels which are not unseaworthy, and which, moreover, had been surveyed before they proceeded on their voyages. I need only refer to the instances of the Vicksburg, which struck on an iceberg, of the Schiller, which went upon the rocks near the Scilly Islands, and of the burning of the Cospatrick. I think it is but fair, in the interests of the officials of the Board of Trade, who carry into effect the provisions of the law, that I should bring these facts under your Lordships' notice, because there is a considerable feeling in the country that Parliament should do everything that it possibly can in this matter. One remarkable fact, showing the manner in which those officials put in force the provisions of the law, is to be found in a Parliamentary Return, granted in the present year, of the vessels ordered to be surveyed by the Board of Trade. I find that out of 550 ships surveyed between the 5th of August, 1873, and the 30th of June, 1875, no fewer than 505 were surveyed in consequence of reports made by Government officers, leaving, therefore, only 45 ships which were reported by other persons. Having thus endeavoured to show the interest which has been taken in this matter by former Governments, I come to the Bill introduced

  745
  by Her Majesty's present Government in the early part of this year. I may say that Bill was based mainly, if not altogether, upon the recommendations in the Report of the Royal Commission. It was framed with the view, as we hoped and expected of meeting all the necessities of the case, and I think I am justified in saying that the failure to pass that measure is not wholly attributable to any fault or laches on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The failure is to be attributed more to the magnitude of the subject. A measure of such a kind which was to be of a permanent character naturally suggested a large number of Amendments to Members of the other House, many of whom were thoroughly competent to propose Amendments, which, from the very nature of the case, would require and deserve considerable discussion before they could be put into such a satisfactory shape as to warrant their addition to the Bill. Therefore, when I say that the failure of the measure is mainly attributable to the great number of Amendments, I wish wholly to absolve myself from the charge of blaming those who placed those Amendments on the Paper, for from the very nature of the case it was necessary that they should be put down. Accordingly, when the 22nd of July arrived, Her Majesty's Government found on the Paper no fewer than 170 Amendments, of which 136 were suggested by hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House. Having stated this, I do not think I shall be contradicted if I say it would have been almost, if not quite, impossible to bring this measure to a satisfactory termination in anything like the time ordinarily devoted to the transaction of the Business of the country by this and the other House of Parliament. With the most unfeigned regret, therefore, we felt ourselves obliged to withdraw that measure. But at that time we did consider whether by conferring additional powers, like those given under the Act of 1873, it would be possible to mitigate some of the evils which may be expected during the coming winter, and whether it would not be possible by increased restrictions to deal with the subject. We did not believe we could do that in a very satisfactory manner, and circumstances arose to which I need not further allude at this moment. We believed that it was possible and necessary to bring in a
  746
  short Bill which should be temporary in its character, and which would meet some of those evils and some of those disasters to which it is our hope and desire to put a stop. Therefore, we brought in the Bill to which I shall presently ask your Lordships to give a second reading. I wish, however, to say a few words on the allegation that it was unfair for the Government to proceed with a Bill which dealt with compensation to tenants, while they put aside a Bill for preventing loss of life by sea. If we had abandoned the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill for the purpose of proceeding with the Merchant Shipping Bill, the result would have been that neither of those Bills would have been passed this Session. This Bill will give power to an officer appointed by the Board of Trade to delay a ship until he has reason to believe that it is in a satisfactory condition. Under the existing law an officer appointed by the Board of Trade cannot act in that respect until he is directed to do so by the Board of Trade. This Bill also enables one-fourth of the seamen belonging to a ship, if they apprehend that it is unseaworthy, to require an inspection of it by an officer appointed by the Board of Trade, and then an officer appointed by the Board of Trade must take proper steps to ascertain whether the ship ought to be detained. That provision, undoubtedly, will greatly increase the power of a Board of Trade officer. There were four other points that were suggested during the passage of the Bill in the other House of Parliament—namely, first, deck cargo; second, grain cargo; third, load line; and fourth, survey. As to the first, the proposal to deal with the question of deck cargo was rejected on a division in the other House. The question of survey was dropped. The other two points—namely, grain cargo and load line—are dealt with by this Bill. As to grain cargoes, this Bill provides that not more than one-third of the cargo of a British ship shall consist of grain, unless such cargo shall be carried in bags, sacks, or barrels, or be secured from shifting by boards, bulkheads, or otherwise; and that for an offence against that provision a penalty not exceeding £200 may be inflicted. The load line is to be marked on the side of the ship, and is to be entered by the master in the agreement made with his crow. The 9th clause gives to seamen a remedy for any loss

  747
  they may sustain from a ship having been sent to sea in an unseaworthy condition. The last clause provides that this Bill shall be in force until the 1st of October, 1876. That provision indicates that this Bill is to be regarded as a purely temporary measure, and it is an earnest of what Her Majesty's Government intend to do during the Recess—namely, to take the whole subject into their consideration, and, if possible, bring forward a measure which may be of a permanent character, and which will deal with this very important subject in a satisfactory manner.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord President.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that he would not discuss the question whether the Government were justified in abandoning their original Bill. That question had been amply discussed in the House of Commons; but the noble Duke, by way of excuse, pointed to the number of Amendments on the Paper, a large number of which came from the Opposition. That remark implied that those Amendments had been placed in the way of the Bill as a matter of Opposition policy; but nothing of the kind took place.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDexplained that he did not in any way complain of the Amendments which were placed on the Paper. He said that it was obvious that in such a subject there must be great difference of opinion, and that he by no means deprecated or complained of any Amendment that was proposed.
  LORD CARLINGFORDaccepted the explanation; but still the remark that the large majority of the Amendments came from the Opposition meant something. This fact could be easily explained. Almost every shipowner sat on the Opposition side of the House, and they, as shipowners, proposed a great number of Amendments. Mr. Plimsoll was also a Member of the Opposition, and he naturally was the organ of a great number of Amendments. The object of the hon. Member for Derby was to convert the Government Bill into a very different measure, and upon the occasion of that memorable scene in the House of Commons he denounced it as a miserable sham, but said that he had every expectation of converting it into a satisfactory Bill. In his (Lord Carling-ford's) view of the matter the course
  748
  that should have been taken by the Government with regard to the original measure was obvious. The Bill contained proposals which would have effected a complete alteration and reform in the laws relating to Merchant Shipping, in addition to provisions which dealt solely with the question of saving life at sea. Instead of abandoning the Bill as a whole, the Government would have done well, when they found it impossible to carry the whole Bill, to abandon for the present Session all the clauses except those which dealt with the question of saving life. The history of the Bill now before the House was a short and stormy one, and an amount of myth and fable had gathered about it which was worthy of a long and remote period of existence. It had reached them in a more rational and respectable form than might have been expected from the circumstances of its origin, and its advent was therefore to be welcomed, although it came late in the Session. This Bill proceeded, like other recent Acts on the same subject, on the policy of endeavouring to exercise such a police over the shipping as would prevent unseaworthy ships from going to sea, and would bring such stress to bear on the small minority of shipowners who would send ships of that kind to sea as would deter them from continuing those practices, and would gradually weed out and break up dangerous ships. On the general question, he could not help thinking that Mr. Plimsoll was to blame for not having either justified, qualified, or retracted the sweeping charges which he had brought against certain shipowners and against the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. He could say from his own experience that these officers devoted themselves ably to the fulfilment of duties imposed upon them by Parliament. The present Bill proceeded entirely upon the lines of 1871 and 1873. It had been said that the power which the 1st clause gave to detain unseaworthy ships was an alarming innovation; but it really did nothing more than place additional machinery in the hands of the Board of Trade. Under that clause the surveyor of the Board of Trade would have the power of stopping vessels on the same ground only as the Board of Trade could stop them now—the ground—namely, that they could not proceed to sea without serious danger to life. As supplementary

  749
  to the Acts of 1871 and 1873, he believed the present Bill would be found very useful. It contained no violent proposition, and he saw no reason why a great part of it should not occupy a permanent place in the Statute Book. At the same time, he hoped it would not be understood that, because Mr. Plimsoll had called public attention to an existing evil his proposals for checking that evil, were to be taken as a guide or as an authority in future legislation. Insurance still remained to be dealt with, and there was no doubt that the question whether an owner should be allowed to make a profit out of the wreck of his ship, or should merely receive an indemnity for his actual loss, deserved consideration. It was the opinion of the Royal Commissioners that great benefit might result from placing the inquiries into wrecks on a sounder basis than they were at present. To the importance of that subject the Government were evidently alive, and he had no doubt they would consider it before next year. On the whole, he thought their Lordships might congratulate themselves that a rational measure had come out of the recent confusion and excitement, and that a whole year had been gained in the passing of provisions which were calculated to diminish the loss of life at sea.
  LORD HAMPTONwas sorry that the Government had been obliged to abandon their larger measure on this subject, but glad that, under the circumstances, they had introduced the present Bill. In 1870, he brought before the House of Commons a great number of painful cases of unseaworthy ships that had been lost, and moved for a Royal Commission of Inquiry on the subject. At that time the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Bright), was unable to attend to the duties of the office, and he got no answer from the Government. In the following year, however, they brought in a Bill dealing with the Mercantile Marine of this country. In 1873, Mr. Plimsoll moved for a Royal Commission, and he most cordially seconded the Motion. That Royal Commission was presided over by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset), and in a manner which excited the universal approbation of every one who took an interest in this very important subject. There were points in this Bill, short and temporary as it was, which, to his
  750
  mind, were of extreme importance. There was one subject, however, which he was sorry had not been dealt with—the Bill contained no provision with regard to deck loading. The argument used in its favour was that it applied only to timber loading brought from Canada, and that to prevent it would seriously injure that trade. He did not believe that, nor was he of opinion that it applied exclusively to the timber trade. Many painful cases had occurred where the only cause that could reasonably be assigned for shipwreck and loss of life was the deck loads which had been carried. Two provisions in this Bill he regarded with the greatest satisfaction—he alluded to the provisions for limiting the loading of grain in bulk and for establishing a load line. Whether this last provision was quite satisfactory in its nature he would not say; very likely it might be necessary to re-consider it in a future Session. He had been for many years the President of the Society of Naval Architects, which consisted of a great number of eminent naval men, and they had all been of opinion that they saw no reason why deck loading should not have been long since prohibited and a loading line adopted in the Mercantile Marine. He was convinced that, on the whole, the Bill was one which would give great satisfaction to the country. He thought the part which Mr. Plimsoll had taken on this important matter entitled him to the gratitude and respect of the country. The noble Lord who last addressed the House had spoken with some severity as to part of Mr. Plimsoll's conduct. He did not stand there to defend everything he had said or done; but this he would say—Mr. Plimsoll had shown a zeal and energy which did him great honour, and he was glad to see that his exertions had been crowned with success.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, having been Chairman of the Royal Commission which had been referred to, wished to say a few words to their Lordships, and they should be very few. He was sorry this subject had been brought forward in the last days of the Session, and especially that it had been brought forward in a somewhat sensational manner; for he must confess it was sensational, when the measure was the result partly of meetings out-of-doors, and partly of the hysterical screams of a Member of the House of Commons. He thought

  751
  that such a measure should be dealt with in the calmest and most judicial spirit. The Act of 1873 did undoubtedly give great powers to the Board of Trade, and, though brought forward like this Bill late in the Session, it had worked very well for the country. No doubt, it gave the means of stopping unseaworthy ships, and the officers of the Board of Trade told the Royal Commission that they had no difficulty in stopping such vessels, telegraphing to the Board that they did so. That looked like an arbitrary power, for it seemed as if gentlemen sent round the coast had an absolute power of stopping ships, only reporting the fact to the Board of Trade. That was a great power, and when they considered what the tonnage of our Mercantile Marine was—that it was larger than the tonnage of all other mercantile nations—it was of the greatest importance that such powers should be used with caution. The interests of the shipowner must be carefully considered on the one hand, and the interests of the seamen on the other. It must not be supposed that the shipowner was the only party that was blameworthy and that the seaman was never in any way to be blamed. The fact, in many cases, was very different. However anxious parties might be to increase the seaworthiness of vessels, a seaman could very seldom be induced to walk 100 yards to look at the ship he was going in—he did not care a pin about it. When they joined a ship they were often drunk, being literally carried on board by their lodging-house keepers—the vessels in the Mersey and the Thames serving as hospitals in which they might recover from their crapulous imbecility. When collisions occurred whose fault was it? In great measure the fault of the seamen, who would not keep a look-out; and they could not be punished for not keeping a look-out. What he wanted was, while they proposed to punish the shipowner for the unseaworthiness of his ship, that means should be given for enforcing discipline on board our Mercantile Marine as in the Navy. Why were the ships in our Navy safe? Because they were better built, better manned, better disciplined, and because a better look-out was kept. They had introduced the examination of masters and mates to make them able to manage their ships; they had made regulations as to the crew to make them comfortable
  752
  on board; they had prescribed a scale of food so that the seamen should be well fed; and they had given notes of allotment by which seamen might provide for their wives and families. These allotment notes, by the way, were mistaken by some persons for advance notes. With regard to the latter, he urged their abolition, because of the evil use made of them by crimps. Merchants, shipowners, and others who had looked into the subject had said that until you got rid of these advance notes, you would never get rid of the slavery to which the sailor was subjected. He hoped when the Government brought in the Bill of next year it would be seen that they had paid special attention to this subject. People talked about free contract between the seaman and the shipowner. But how could there be free contract when one of the parties was unfortunately often in such a state that he had to be carried on board? Then there was another point, as to the ships themselves. It was a mistaken opinion that all the ships which were lost were old, rotten, wooden vessels. The great danger now was from new iron-built ships. Those who had looked into the subject were well aware of that. The new iron ships were often of very great length. They had all sorts of contrivances, which worked very comfortably while the weather was fine, but which were very dangerous in rough weather and squalls. Those large vessels should have machinery in proportion; but in that point they were often very weak. Lloyd's surveyed ships, it was true; but they did not survey their machinery. Vessels of this kind were liable to be overwhelmed when they got into the trough of the sea when a squall was on. With regard to insurance, he hoped that question would not be taken up in the same Bill which dealt with unseaworthy ships, or the discipline of the men. The subject of insurance was one which would require to be treated with great care and consideration, and if all these questions were to be dealt with in one Bill he feared the same fate would await it as had overtaken the Bill of this year—they would never get it through the House of Commons. Merchants and persons conversant with the subject must and would discuss it, and therefore if they had one great Bill the Government would not be able to carry it through the House. He also hoped they would

  753
  be able to repeal a great many of the provisions which we now had. Could anything be more absurd than the provision that boats should be carried in proportion to the tonnage and not to the men? Then there was a regulation that ships should carry coloured lights, so that they might be seen at a certain distance. Shipowners were very much puzzled, and bought lanterns after lanterns, but they could not be seen. Then they went to the Board of Trade, and said—" We will get any lights you like, but we cannot get lanterns to suit." The Board of Trade, however, answered—"Oh! we cannot help you. That is the Act." He feared that the Board of Trade would be too much taken up in carrying out this Bill and in watching railways during the coming autumn, and would not have time to prepare a now Bill. He hoped the Government would strengthen the Department, so that they might have assistance in preparing the measure of next year.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Duke had stated that something should be done to make seamen more careful. He was bound to say, according to his experience, derived from cases in which he had been engaged, that the want of look-out was seldom attributable to the sailors, but much more frequently to the master or the mate, or, in other words, to the skilled navigators of; the ship. The noble Duke had said that sailors were a very careless race—that they would not take the trouble to walk 100 yards to see whether the ship was unseaworthy or not, and that they were often carried on board drunk. There could hardly be a better proof of the necessity of legislation. If sailors were careful and vigilant, legislation would not be required. It was because sailors were negligent and often taken on board drunk that it was necessary to enforce against the shipowner what, after all, was only the shipowner's duty. With regard to the advance note system, it was fraught with evils of every kind. Sailors for a debauch on shore would anticipate their earnings, and not only would they not receive the full amount they were entitled to, but the notes were discounted at an exorbitant rate, and a very small portion of the money was enjoyed by the sailor. But the noble Duke ought to remember that this matter had been canvassed very fully "elsewhere," and that there was a
  754
  strong opinion against interfering with freedom of contract. The noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) had examined the Bill in a manner which was extremely candid and fair, and had avoided reference to many subjects upon which he might easily have dwelt. Nothing could have been more useful than his examination of the measure and the history he had given of the Act on which it was founded. The noble Lord had said that this measure proceeded upon the lines of the Act passed under his own auspices when he was at the head of the Board of Trade. It was of some importance to refer to the exact difference. As the law now existed, the Board of Trade must act at the outports through an officer who would make his examination and report the result by telegraph or letter. The difficulty of the case was that delay occurred first in the officer sending his report, then in the Board of Trade's considering it and conveying its decision to the officer. As their Lordships would see, the opinion of the officer must mainly guide the Board of Trade, and if the Board of Trade detained a ship improperly, it was liable for damages. But under this Bill the officer must act on his own discretion in the first instance, and the Board of Trade would be responsible for his action. As to insurance, he could say that the subject would be most carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government. The more it was looked into, the more the question would be asked why, if in the case of life and fire insurance the insurer would not be allowed to receive more than would compensate him for the loss sustained, the insurer of a vessel might contract beforehand that there should be no examination into the amount of damage, but that a gross, absolute sum should be paid over, no matter how much that gross sum might exceed the loss. This was a grave subject for consideration, and the more it was considered the more closely it would be found connected with the subject now before their Lordships. However, this was a matter which required ample time for its discussion.
  LORD DENMANquoted the opinion of an experienced officer of the Navy who had also sailed in merchant vessels, and who said that the load line ought to be fixed by the owner, with the approval of the Board of Trade officials; but the great difficulty would be to find

  755
  competent men at the low rate offered by the Board of Trade, to see these regulations strictly carried out. This officer added that, having brought home several cargoes of grain in bulk from Odessa, he regarded such cargoes as most dangerous, owing to their tendency to shift, notwithstanding the use of boards; and, as many claims were usually made for damage done to the grain in transitu, he suggested that if the money thus paid were laid out in bags, it would be better for both parties. He hoped time would be given for the proposal of Amendments in Committee, and believed that limiting the weight of grain, instead of permitting the carrying of any quantity, with a proportion only of it loose, would be an improvement in the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not propose to prolong this discussion, particularly after the speeches of his noble Friends (Lord Carlingford and the Duke of Somerset)—speeches which, he could not help thinking the Government would find of great use when they were engaged in preparing the permanent and more extensive measure which they proposed to submit next year. Without entering into the story of the Bill—a story which might be told in different ways—he expressed his satisfaction that the Government had been able to introduce even this provisional measure which was likely soon to pass into law.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons' Amendments considered (according to Order).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he did not propose to ask their Lordships to disagree with any of the Amendments made in the other House, except three or four which were purely of a verbal character, and he would move such an Amendment at the end of Clause 19.
  EARL GRANVILLEcould not allow the occasion to pass without some observations, though he promised to be merciful in the length of them. The Government were now in the unfortunate position in which he found himself during the five years when he
  756
  had the honour of conducting the Business of the late Government in this House. Long before this period of the Session he used then to hear strong complaints, many of which came from the leading Opposition Bench, and elaborate speeches against the introduction of Business so late in the Session. He could not help fancying that if he had made the present Motion during these five years, he should have heard the complaints renewed. The thin state of the House would have lent point to those complaints, and he would remind their Lordships that when they divided last week only 19 Peers were present, and by the aid of only two of these 19, the Government were able to sanction an irregularity strongly condemned by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. If during his five official years he had said on such an occasion as this that the Bill was not a new Bill, and had been once considered in this House, the answer would have been that nine pages of Amendments had been made in the Bill in "another place," containing changes not only in important details, but in what had been described as the central principle of the Bill, so that their Lordships had really to consider a new Bill. He believed, also, that if he had stated that the Bill was of an urgent and important character, he should have been told that, while some persons disliked the Bill, and while others liked it, because they thought it might lead to further legislation of which the great majority of their Lordships would not approve, the great mass of persons were very indifferent and, excepting his noble Friend opposite and the Prime Minister, nobody thought the Bill of great importance or great urgency. Now, he adhered to the principle which he laid down when in office. He thought the House ought not to refuse to consider Bills, merely because it might be personally inconvenient to them to remain in town so late in the Session; and, as to himself, he did not propose to obstruct the consideration of these Amendments. He thought it was right, however, that their Lordships should look at them a little more closely than seemed to be contemplated by the noble Duke. During the discussions in this House he was bound to say that the noble Duke—not only in his opinion, but in the opinion of others who could speak with much greater authority—conducted the measure

  757
  through Committee with great ability, great firmness, and great tact; and according to the view of the noble Duke the Bill left this House in a consistent and comprehensive shape. One clause, enabling landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of the Bill, was thought an awkward and invidious way of securing freedom of contract, and the Government in this House were so impressed with the force of the argument that they omitted the clause. It appeared, however, that the Government had, for the second time, re-considered this subject, for he found that a clause to the same effect had been re-introduced. He now came to a point of much greater importance. Objections were made in the course of the discussions here to the principle of the letting value, but it was described as being the essential principle of the Bill. In the other House, however, the Prime Minister—who seemed inclined to differ from his Colleagues, however able and devoted they might be—said the principle had been adopted mainly in the interest of the remainder-man, and ended by describing this principle, which their Lordships were told was the essential principle of the Bill, as one which was capricious and fallacious. It was, consequently, omitted from the Bill. He (Earl Granville) rejoiced that that had been done, for he thought that principle would have led to great uncertainty, risk, and fraud. He had now to call attention to the first class of improvements, and with regard to them he found that the tenants of limited owners were put in a perfectly different and an inferior position from the tenants of absolute owners. Both classes were to be compensated in the same way as regarded the original cost; but the former had a limitation imposed upon them that the sum should not exceed the addition made to the letting value of the land. A vicious principle was thus introduced into the measure, because by far the larger number of the tenant farmers of this country held their lands, he believed, under limited owners. He could not conceive anything more unjust than this clause, for why should a limited owner be in a worse position by law than an absolute owner of an estate? It was extremely unfair to the limited owner that he should be overweighted in this competition. Suppose a compensation case were tried before a land surveyor, who would be almost necessarily ignorant
  758
  of law, in what manner could he be satisfied whether the landlord was the absolute owner or whether he was only a limited owner? He foresaw that in some cases very great difficulties would arise on this particular point, and this would greatly multiply the number of persons who, he believed, had already determined not to come under the provisions of the Bill. He trusted that this part of the Bill as it now stood would be altered. He made these remarks in no hostile spirit, although he should not be surprised to find the noble Duke opposite equipping himself in adamantine armour in order to meet his attack. In conclusion, he would hazard no prophecy, but could not help feeling a little alarm at the benediction bestowed on the Bill by a Conservative Member of Parliament, an eminent solicitor in this great town, who said that, whatever other merits it might possess, it was certainly a measure that would be of infinite advantage to the profession to which he belonged.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the noble Earl would himself endeavour to equip himself in adamantine armour whenever he expected to come in contact with what he called a hostile spirit. On the present occasion, however, it was unnecessary for him to seek the protection of any very strong adamantine armour; but he would simply reply to the comments of his noble Friend. There was no question that that part of the Bill which related to letting value had been altered in the other House; but it was retained for the purpose for which alone it was absolutely necessary— namely, the protection of the limited owner. It seemed to him to be in the nature of things that the absolute owner must be in a better position than a limited owner. As to the difficulty anticipated by his noble Friend with regard to the land surveyor's decision, he did not think it was at all likely to arise. On so large a subject as the present it was not unlikely nor unreasonable that in the House of Commons there should be various opinions. He believed some of the Amendments to be improvements on the original Bill, and he should therefore propose that they be agreed to.
  LORD CARLINGFORDobserved, that the Bill in the shape in which it left their Lordships' House was much more favourable to the tenant than it was now.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the observation of the noble Lord who had just spoken was an entirely just one. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the change which had been made in the Bill was made in a House in which there was a considerable number of Representatives, not merely of the owners of land, but also the occupiers of land; and he believed he should be correct in saying that no division was taken against the change in the other House. With regard to the observations of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), he (the Lord Chancellor) desired to say that this was the first measure of the kind with which he was acquainted which allowed the owner of land—that was to say, those who were interested in the possession of land—to enter into contracts with their tenants without either obtaining the consent of, or serving notice upon, the remainderman, and the experience of all of them had been that former legislation on this subject had failed, because tenants for life were required before they could take any steps to improve land, either to obtain the consent of the remainderman or to serve a notice upon him with reference to that subject. With regard to improvements of the second and third class, an owner, who was not an absolute owner, would be just as powerful as the most absolute owner. He might make any agreement with his tenant that he liked within the four corners of this Bill. With regard to improvements of the first class, as to which the noble Earl had spoken, the tenant could not make them without the consent of the landlord.
  LORD SELBORNEthought that the clause, as amended by the Commons, would be a fruitful source of litigation. The effect would be that whenever a tenant proposed to make an improvement, he would have to inquire into the title of his landlord; and whether he was a limited owner or not, he ventured to say that in 99 out of 100 cases he would simply go and ask whether he might make such and such improvements. There was no reason why a tenant for life should not give compensation on the same principle as an absolute owner. He did not think that the criticism, which had been made upon the Amendments were by any means satisfactorily answered.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, speaking as a layman, and looking at the matter in a practical point of view, he wished to make one remark. He did not believe that the portion of the Bill which referred to first-class improvements would receive any extensive application, except in the case of those who were official limited owners. The vast majority of landlords made all these improvements themselves; but an official limited owner, like a Bishop or a clergyman, had not sufficient permanent interest in the estate to make such improvements. As far as other owners were concerned, he believed that in almost any market town the tenant farmers would be able to say which estates—taking in the whole country—were the property of limited owners and which were entailed. As to the objection that the Bill was permissive, the Government thought it absolutely essential to maintain freedom of contract, and the manner in which this object was to be attained they regarded as a mere matter of detail. The advantage of the provision on that subject was, that it would prevent a general issue of notices to quit. Most of their Lordships were now aware that the vast majority of tenants were satisfied with the existing state of things, and would see the adoption of the Bill with considerable reluctance—not because it would not be profitable to them, but because they did not like changes. The Bill had therefore to be framed to meet those cases. It was of great importance, indeed, that the provision in question should not be distasteful to either landlords or tenants, and it was difficult at first to ascertain in what direction their tastes would run. As the discussion went on, however, the Government were enlightened on that point, and he did not see that they had done wrong in accepting an alteration.
  LORD DENMAN, referring to the opinion of the Duke of Rutland and himself, as to the time of entry in Derbyshire, recommended six months as the term of notice, in order that tenants might be prevented from exhausting the land.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Amendments agreed to, with Amendments.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACT (1873) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' AMENDMENTS.
  Commons Amendments considered, (according to Order).
  LORD SELBORNEcomplained that the Amendments were presented in an almost, if not wholly, unintelligible form, and pointed out that the existing practice of the House as to Bills of importance, returned with extensive amendments and alterations from the Commons, was highly inconvenient. Unless the alterations made, with their whole con-text were clearly indicated in a reprint, there was a danger of the House passing over slips and errors which would have to be amended subsequently. There were two points in these Amendments of critical importance, on which he deemed it an imperative duty to offer some observations. The first related to the repeal of that portion of the 15th section of the Act of 1873 which provided that no new appointment of Puisne Judges should be made to the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, or Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice till the number of Puisne Judges should be reduced to 12. The House of Commons had repealed that limitation on the number of the Puisne Judges. It was very much to be regretted that before the working of the new system could be tried, there should be any alteration in that respect. It tended more than he could wish to encourage and confirm an idea, which previous experience only gave too much colour to, that no reform of the law could be reconciled with public economy—that whenever there were increased establishments those augmentations must be made perpetual, and resistance would be offered to every attempt to effect further improvement with the least possible amount of cost to the public. To increase the number of Judges, unless it was really necessary, would not tend to increase the estimation in which they were held. It would not tend to greater expedition, energy, and efficiency in the disposal of business. In 1867 three new Judges were added to the existing number, expressly that they might do the business of the Election Petitions—business which only occupied a short period of their time, except in the year immediately after a General Election. The Act which added them was a temporary one, and was continued
  762
  from time to time till now. That having been done, in the Autumn of the same year the Judicature Commission was appointed to consider, among other subjects, the number of the Judges. The Commission recommended no increase; but they did recommend that three Judges should be taken annually from among the number of the Puisne Judges, and made for the year members of the Court of Appeal according to the constitution of that Court which they recommended. In 1869 the deliberate opinion of that Commission was that 12 Puisne Judges were adequate to discharge the business of the Courts of First Instance; and the scheme of the Act of 1873 was, in that respect, in perfect harmony with the Report of the Commission in 1869. That Report was signed—without any difference of opinion on this point—by all the eminent Judges, and other members of the Legal Profession, who sat upon the Commission. The operation of the Act of 1873, and also of the present Bill would relieve the Judges from attendance in the Court of Exchequer Chamber, which usually involved the attendance of five or six Judges for four or five weeks in the year. It should also be observed that the change made by the Act of 1873 would not be sudden. At present there were 15 Judges; and, as the process of reduction to 12 would be gradual. Parliament would have an opportunity of interposing, if necessary, whenever there was any actual experience of any evil resulting from the reduction. He did not doubt that there was a considerable pressure and block of business at present; but he could not help looking at that in connection with some extraordinary and exceptional cases, such as the Tichborne Case, which, on the first trial, occupied one Judge for nearly a year, and on the second occupied three Judges for nearly another year. Again, it had been the general rule, subject, no doubt, to exceptions in cases of emergency, that the three Judges chosen in each particular year to try Election Petitions should not go Circuit; while they were not on Circuit they had the time at their own disposal, and he had been told that some of those Judges who would be the last to neglect their duty had found leisure, during those intervals, to visit remote parts of the world. It had been recommended by a Committee of the House

  763
  of Commons that two Judges should always sit together to try Election Petitions; but if Election Petitions were not very unlike other cases, there would be quite a luxurious waste of judicial power if this recommendation were adopted. If, however, the Committee considered this recommendation a reasonable one, they must also have considered that there could not be such a heavy pressure on the Common Law Judges. He would not object to have 18 Judges, or any number that might be required, if experience proved it necessary; but, until the Act of 1873 was in operation, there could be no such experience. The new arrangements and the extension of the Chancery practice of single Judges sitting—and if there was to be a permanent Court of Intermediate Appeal the reason why single Judges should sit would obtain additional force—would be found, in his opinion, to remove that pressure of business which was complained of. He came now to the second important point. Considerable changes had been made by the House of Commons in the constitution of the Intermediate Court of Appeal. From the ordinary channels of information, he had seen that, according to an Amendment proposed by the Attorney General, instead of three additional Judges, only one was to be nominated by the Crown, while one or more Judges might be borrowed from the Court of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer should it be necessary, to assist in the Court of Appeal. The Bill, as it left that House, proposed five ordinary and five ex officio Members of the Court of Appeal. He doubted at the time the sufficiency of such a tribunal; but now there were to be five ex officio and only three ordinary Judges. Judges of First Instance were to be borrowed from their respective Courts; and if they could be so borrowed as to be substantially available for the increase of the strength of the Court of Appeal, this circumstance strongly confirmed his impression that it was not clear that the present number of Judges in the Courts of First Instance was absolutely required for the discharge of the business there. For his part, he regretted greatly the increase in the Court of Appeal Judges taken from the Court of First Instance, there being only three permanent Judges; it looked exceedingly like a modification of the present Court
  764
  of Exchequer Chamber, the constitution of which was certainly not satisfactory. He could not help disapproving the changes made by the Bill; and the only satisfactory thing, to his mind, was that the measure was only to last for a single year, and that in another Session the whole subject might be dealt with in a manner unprejudiced by anything which was done now. As it was, the entire question affecting the Courts of Appeal was left in an imperfect and provisional state. He did not wish to see this question become the subject of legislation every year; but he did hope that next year the subject would be dealt with, not, as it had now been dealt with, under mixed political and professional influences, reflecting no mature or deliberate judgment either of the Government or of the Legislature, but with the sole aim of providing the best Appellate system for the administration of justice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the hour had been earlier and the audience more encouraging, he should have been glad to enter at length into some of the points mentioned by his noble and learned Friend. He entirely concurred with him in regretting the form in which the Bill came back to that House. The record of Amendments did not accurately represent the Amendments actually made in the other House, and such inaccuracies ought to be prevented for the future. By the omission of the word "not" the Lord Chancellor had been made one of the permanent Judges of the Court of Appeal. As to the length of the Amendments, deducting the clauses sent down in red ink, which came back as Amendments, but were only technically so, the real Amendments made in the other House might be comprised in a couple of pages. One material Amendment was that by which the present number of Puisne Judges was kept at 15, instead of being reduced to 12. He was bound to say that there was the strongest possible feeling against this reduction, not only on the part of the Judicial Bench and at the Bar, as represented in the House of Commons, but also among the Representatives of large communities like Lancashire. He believed the number of Judges might be reduced, as a matter of trial, to 12 Puisne Judges, if the Assizes were excluded; but he had satisfied himself that with only 12 Puisne Judges the Circuit work could not be done, even if only one

  765
  Judge were left to do the Chamber work in London. His noble and learned Friend had dwelt on the evil of any unnecessary multiplications of Judges. Now, he must express his belief that the number of Judges could not be reduced to the lowest point compatible with efficiency until we had broken up the system which prevailed in the Common Law Courts of having more Judges than one to sit as Judges of First Instance. That system, he thought, could not continue to exist. At present the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the most extravagantly paid Court in the country, for there were four paid Judges, costing the country £20,000 a-year, to dispose of only 100 cases in a year. With respect to the Appellate Court, the whole change consisted in this—that instead of the Crown appointing three extra Judges, each of the Divisions should be asked to appoint a Judge to assist the Court of Appeal, when necessary. He denied altogether that the Court of Appeal would be in any degree a weak one. He proposed to make some further Amendments, in order to correct some of the obvious mistakes left in the clauses, and also to vary the Amendment concerning costs, by giving a discretionary power to the Judge on good cause being shown.
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he had from the first opposed this legislation, and he should be glad if this Bill could be postponed till next Session, because the Commons Amendments were referred to a copy of the Bill, which did not correspond with the pages and lines of the Bill, so that it was impossible for this House fairly to consider the alterations made. He did not think that the Bill would work well; and he was surprised at the speech of the Prime Minister at a recent dinner, in which he congratulated himself and the Government on passing it in a few days.
  Several Amendments agreed to, with Amendments; and some disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to the said amendments: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from Committee of the reason prepared by them; read, and agreed to; and a message sent to the Commons to return the said Bill, with the reason.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Twelve o'clock.