Sitting of 6 July 1875

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Classes II. AND III.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [July 5] reported—Ordered—First Reading—Public Works [Consolidated Fund] * [243].
First Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) (No. 2) * [239]; Local Government Board's Poor Law Provisional Orders Confirmation (Oxford, &c.) * [240]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, Barnsley, &c.) * [241]; Registration of Trade Marks* [242].
Second Reading—Entail Amendment (Scotland) * [212].
Committee—Report—Artizans Dwellings (Scotland) * [229].
The House met at Two of the clock.

ARMY—THE CAVAN MILITIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, "Whether it is true that on or about 23rd June a number of officers of Cavan Militia attended in uniform at a concert held in the County Court House, Cavan, for the purpose of raising funds to build an Orange Hall; whether the following Rule:—
  "By the Queen's Regulations officers and soldiers are forbidden to institute or take part in any meetings, demonstrations, or processions for party or political purposes, in barracks, camp, quarters, or elsewhere,"
  applies to Militia as it does to officers of the Line; and, if it be true that the Cavan Militia officers attended under the above circumstances, and if the rule laid down as to soldiers and officers of the Army applies to men and officers of the Militia, whether he proposes to take any, and if so, what steps in reference to the matter?
  CAPTAIN STANLEY, in reply, said, that it was true that on the 23rd June a number of the officers of the Cavan Militia attended a concert in uniform; but the officer commanding the Militia denied that there was anything of a party or political character in the meeting held on that occasion. So far as he (Captain Stanley) could understand the concert was not held in order to raise funds to build an Orange Hall. It was true that by the Queen's Regulations officers and soldiers were forbidden to engage or take part in any meeting or procession for party or political purposes; and this rule during the time that the Militia were out for training applied to them as well as to soldiers of the Line. The officers of the Cavan Militia attended in their uniform under a regulation of the service which directed that officers should wear uniform when attending on public occasions.
  MR. ARCHDALLasked permission to read a letter from Colonel Saunderson, the colonel of the Cavan Militia. He said—
  "My dear Archdall,—Mr. Biggar has given Notice of a Question on Tuesday next as to the attendance of the officers of the Cavan Militia in uniform at a concert given in Cavan on the 23rd ultimo in aid of the building fund of an Orange Hall. The officers of the regiment will feel extremely grateful to you, as the Member for the next county, if you will say that the concert was not in aid of the funds of an Orange Hall, or for any party purpose whatever. The building in the aid of which it was held is to be devoted to the various clerical meetings and society meetings of the diocese, and the Question is, of course, a political attack upon the Saundersons, of whom there are three in the regiment."

RAILWAYS—ACCIDENT AT BATH-AMPTON JUNCTION.—QUESTION.
MR. HAYTERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to the verdict of the coroner's jury, at the inquest held upon the body of a commercial traveller killed in the late fatal Railway accident at Bathampton Junction; whether he is aware that the jury, in their verdict, declare themselves unanimously of opinion, that the Board of Trade has seriously neglected its duty to the public by permitting the Great Western Railway Company to carry passengers for 12 months since the alteration of gauge over these facing points without any official inspection, and without enforcing the conditions deemed necessary for safety by Colonel Tolland; and, whether he will lay Colonel Tolland's reply, at the conclusion of his inquiry, upon the Table of the House?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the verdict to which the Question refers must have been founded on a total misapprehension of the law and of the facts of the case. The Board of Trade have no power to make an inspection of new works with a view of deciding on their opening or the postponement of their use for passenger traffic until the Railway Company have given formal notice of their intention to open them. In the present case the Great Western Railway Company have never given the required notice, and the Board of Trade have therefore never had the power to order an inspection with a view to requiring any alteration or amendment in the works or permanent way. The Board
1000
of Trade are in communication with the Company on the subject of this Question, and the Correspondence, together with Colonel Tolland's Report of his inquiry into the circumstances of the accident, will be laid on the Table immediately.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS—PENSIONS.—QUESTION.
MR. FIELDENasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, If the pensions of £6,500 referred to in the Minute of the 26th June last are to be restricted to Teachers appointed before 9th May 1862, or if it is intended that this is to be the introduction of a system by which all Teachers in Elementary Schools shall in future be entitled to pensions or superannuation allowances?
VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, as my hon. Friend supposes, the proposed pensions are limited to those who became teachers before May 9, 1862. For many years the teachers have complained of the withdrawal, by the Revised Code of 1862, of the offers under which, they assert, they were induced to enter the profession, and a deep sense of wrong has long existed. Though, on careful examination of the matter, we agreed with the Report of the Committee of this House, which, in fact, decided that the teachers have no vested right to a pension, still we came to the conclusion that those who became teachers before that date had a moral claim upon the Government under the former Minutes to expect that their applications for a pension would under certain limitations be considered by the Department on the grounds of incapacity, from age or infirmity, to continue teaching with advantage to the country, together with a deficiency of other resources. We felt that, though their claims might not be strictly legal, it was the duty of the Government, acting on behalf of the country, to deal with the teachers in the same spirit of scrupulous honour and adherence to honourable engagements which it expects them to show in their schools and to impress upon their scholars; and upon these grounds alone we decided to set apart, to meet this special case, the sum of £6,500 per annum, the sum proposed in 1851 by the late Lord Lansdowne—the same Lord President that passed the original Pension Minute of 1846. The

1001
general question of pensions is in no way touched hereby; and I desire, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to state definitely that by this action we must be understood to express no opinion whatever in favour of a general system of Government pensions, to teachers. Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity of stating that the Lord President and I, for reasons which the House will appreciate, have decided to receive no private applications whatever for these pensions, and that applications will only be received from managers and trustees of schools. We rely upon Parliament to support us in this course.

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

LEGAL DEPARTMENTS COMMISSION.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHrose to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that, pending future legislation on the subject, no vacancy in a salaried office in any of the legal establishments should be filled up without the consent of the Treasury."
  The noble Lord said, that in 1873, when economy was not so much at a discount as now, a Committee was appointed who inquired into the Civil Service expenditure. The Committee was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ponte-fract (Mr. Childers), and of it four of the Members of the present Government, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor to the Treasury, formed part. The first point to which they directed attention was the expenditure for the Legal Departments, and in their Report they stated that the cost for the United Kingdom amounted to £1,750,000 per annum. Of this sum, the suitors paid £940,000, leaving the net cost of the Courts at about £800,000, so that they were a heavy national burden. It appeared from the Report of the Committee that the power of the Treasury over these Departments was often very limited, being limited, indeed, in some cases by statute; and the Committee were unanimously of opinion that a strong primâ facie case had been made by the officers of the Treasury to the
  1002
  effect that both with respect to costs and administrative regulations these establishments should undergo a searching investigation. They further recommended that, pending future legislation on the subject, no vacancy in a salaried office in any of the legal establishments should be filled up without the consent of the Treasury. A Royal Commission was afterwards appointed and presided over by Lord Lisgar, and of which Mr. Law was a member, and which, from its composition, was eminently entitled to weight. It appeared that, owing to recent legal reforms and the abolition of offices, we were now paying £220,000 a-year for pensions to the former holders of those offices, and the Commission found that a very small number of those persons—only the receivers of £13,000 out of the £220,000—could be called upon to serve their country. On the other hand, they found that a certain number even of the persons who were not liable to service were patriotically ready to do something for their money, and the Commissioners, therefore, recommended that it should be the bounden duty of those who filled up legal offices to offer those persons suitable service when vacancies occurred. The Commissioners also expressed their entire concurrence in the recommendation of the Committee—
  "That reductions should be effected rather by an entire cessation of appointments to the clerical service, and by transfer from one department to another, than by superannuating (on abolition of office) the clerks who may be found redundant in particular offices."
  In Ireland it was found that the expenses of the Court of Chancery were four times its receipts, and the state of things there was pronounced most unsatisfactory, and such as demanded searching inquiry. He hoped, therefore, that the Commission would resume its investigation into the Courts in Ireland and Scotland. In England, as might be expected in Courts which were fed by suitors and had grown up without certain control, a certain number of officials were found whose duties were almost nominal; there was also great diversity in the duties and salaries; and the hours of work were so limited that if these Departments were placed in the same position as other Civil Service establishments, a reduced number of officials might well perform the work.

  1003
  The Registrar of Married Women's Acknowledgments was paid £700 a-year, though his office was described as a sinecure; but, apart from this, the Commissioners reported that as the duties by Act of Parliament devolved upon the Court of Common Pleas, they should be discharged by the officer of that Court who was responsible for its administrative business generally. Then as to the eight Clerks of Assize, who received about £5,500 a-year, the Commissioners found that, though in past times this office might have been necessary and important, the changes in the law and procedure, and other causes, rendered it undesirable to continue the office.
  "On several circuits," they said, "the Clerk of Assize rarely attends in Court, and it has been given in evidence before us that his presence is not required. On five of the great circuits the duties are wholly or partially "performed by his deputy."
  He would now pass to the recommendations with respect to the future administration of these Departments. And here it was to be remarked that it was found that in some places where the work was hardest the staff was weakest. In the Court of Queen's Bench, for instance, 20 clerks did 20 per cent less business than 18 clerks in the Court of Exchequer. In like manner, while the duties of the Masters in the three Courts were very unequal, those in the Exchequer being heaviest and in the Queen's Bench lightest, the number of officials charged to the country was in all cases the same. In this state of things the Commission suggested a very natural remedy—that of fusion of offices, with other reforms, so that four Masters might be dispensed with. The office of Associates should be merged in that of Masters, and the Associates should be merely Assistant Masters. They went further, and proposed one central department, which should provide for the administration of civil and criminal business in London and on Circuit. In the Court of Chancery the Commissioners found the same state of things. The Chief Clerks, whose duties were very arduous, received the very moderate pay of £1,200 a-year; while in offices where the labour was not heavier and the ability required not greater the salaries varied between £2,000 and £1,800. In this case, also, the Commissioners made a similar recommendation for the construction of an
  1004
  office common to the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal. Baron Bram-well, who seemed more courageous than his Colleagues, recommended that the whole work of the Courts of Common Law and Chancery should be done by one department. Such a concentration of offices would produce a great economy and add to the efficiency of our administrative departments. The third evil pointed out by the Commission was the length of the holidays, and the short time during which many of these offices were open. This complaint seemed to come more from solicitors and those practising in the Courts than anybody else. He was not certain whether that evil would be diminished by the Judicature Act; if not, it was a matter which required to be taken in hand. It appeared that whereas in the Civil Service generally there were 310 working days of six hours each, in the Legal Departments few men worked more than 190 days of six hours. In other words, allowing for the holidays, which were different in the Civil Service establishments, the clerks in some of the Legal Departments only worked two-thirds of the time which the clerks in the Civil Service Departments generally worked. He would here call attention to the Resolution—
  "That, pending future legislation on the subject, no vacancy in a salaried office in any of the legal establishments should be filled up without the consent of the Treasury."
  A Committee of the House of Commons in 1873 recommended that a Bill should be introduced by Her Majesty's Government to effect that object. Their Report was made at the end of June, 1873. Many important points had to be considered in connection with the subject, and the Government then in office found it impossible to carry the recommendation into effect that Session; but they issued a Circular to the Judges and the holders of patronage in these various Departments, in which they stated that—
  "Placing confidence in those who have to appoint to the various offices in question, they have thought it better to request that, in the event of a vacancy in any legal office of the character referred to, the right of appointment to which is vested in yourself by statute or custom, a fresh appointment to such office may be suspended and temporary provision may be made for the discharge of its duties, if such a course can be adopted without serious inconvenience to the public service."

  1005
  Then the Circular adds—
  "If, however, it is indispensable that a fresh appointment should he made, it should, if possible, be conferred in such terms as will leave it subject to the pleasure of Parliament."
  Favourable answers were received from most of the Judges. He had mentioned various offices the abolition of which had been recommended by the Select Committee. Of these three had since become vacant, and they had all been filled up by the Judges. It was clear, therefore, that the Circular had not been attended to by the Judges, and unless the House wished the recommendations of their Committee and also of the Royal Commission to be disregarded, it was necessary to take some further step. He admitted that it was useless at this period of the Session for any private Member to attempt to do anything in the matter, and his only object in calling attention to the question was to strengthen the hands of the Government as far as possible in any course they might consider it desirable to adopt. He hoped the House would adopt his Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that, pending future legislation on the subject, no vacancy in a salaried office in any of the legal establishments should be filled up without the consent of the Treasury,"—(Lord Frederick Cavendish,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he accepted, with the most perfect good faith, the assurance of the noble Lord that he had brought forward this Resolution with the intention of strengthening the hands of the Government, and not for any factious purpose. No one could be more sensible of the importance of the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject, which was made last year than he was; and he felt that the House was under an obligation to the noble Lord for the manner in which he had introduced the subject to their notice. The recommendations contained in the Report had received the anxious consideration of the Government, with a view to their being carried into effect; much, however, must depend upon the
  1006
  consolidation of legal offices and the rearrangement of the whole of our Judicial system, which would be consequent upon the coming into operation of the Judicature Act. Though, as he had assured the House, the matter had already received the earnest attention of the Government, the mode of dealing with it and the time of dealing with it required careful consideration. It was a subject that could not be disposed of by a Re-solution of the House. It must be borne in mind that, when an Act of Parliament provided that certain appointments should or might be made, the theory of the Constitution was, that such appointments were necessary and ought to be filled up. A large portion of these appointments were offices created by Act of Parliament, and could only be abolished by Act of Parliament; and provision must be made for filling them up from time to time until the Act creating them had been repealed. At the same time, as far as appointments affecting the general administration of the government of the country were concerned, the recommendations of the Royal Commission ought not to be lost sight of; and, as a proof that they were not absent from the mind of the Government, he might mention that a valuable appointment in the Court of Chancery, that of one of the registrars, at a salary of 1,200 a-year, which had recently become vacant, had not been filled up. With reference to the three appointments mentioned by the noble Lord, it must be borne in mind that the patronage did not rest with the Government, but with the Judges and others on whom it had by Act of Parliament been conferred, and the Government had no power, beyond that of recommendation, to prevent their being filled up as they became vacant. If the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Amendment Bill passed this Session, a convenient opportunity would be afforded for the consideration of the whole matter, and it might become necessary to obtain the aid of Parliament to deal with it. But a Resolution of the House of Commons could not alter the law of the land. The only way in which effect could be given to the noble Lord's Resolution, in a regular and constitutional manner, would be the passing of an Act, either suspending future appointments or providing that they should not be filled up

  1007
  without the consent of the Treasary, and, as soon as a general scheme of this nature had been framed and settled, no doubt an Act would be passed for giving effect to it. Under these circumstances, the noble Lord would probably feel that he had discharged a useful duty by bringing the matter under the consideration of the House, and would not think it necessary to press his Resolution.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREadmitted there was force in the statement of the Attorney General that these appointments were held under special Act of Parliament, and that no Resolution passed by the House of Commons could make any alteration in respect of them; but he must remind him that the Select Committee of 1873 had recommended that a Bill should be brought in by the Government either suspending appointments to such offices, or providing that they should not be filled up except with the consent of the Treasury. That was an alternative the Government should take now. He understood from the Attorney General that that step was to be taken at a later stage; but it was extremely important that vested interests should not be created pending that decision of the Government. At any rate, it was desirable that a measure should be introduced by the Government giving effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee to which he had referred.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, that having had the honour of being a Member of the Committee which inquired into this subject, and having paid a good deal of attention to the matter, he thought it right to say a few words to the effect that he entirely approved of the course taken by the noble Lord. The disclosures which were made before the Committee were of an exceedingly startling character, especially in regard to the amount of patronage in the hands of the Judges. They had evidence that the salaries paid to all the officers connected with the Probate Court amounted to about £42,000 a-year, and that all these offices were in the gift of the Judge. Then the number and amount of pensions were also very startling. There was not time for the Committee to inquire with regard to the Courts of Ireland and Scotland; but if that matter had been looked into, he believed it would be found that, as regarded pensions,
  1008
  there were 23 judicial pensions for offices formerly held in Scotland. Now, he did not think anyone would deny that the amount of strictly legal business in Scotland must be greater than the strictly legal business in Ireland, because trade in Scotland was so much larger, and litigation arose mainly from trade transactions. He knew there were exceptional circumstances in Ireland, but supposing that double the number of Judges were required, that would only give 46 pensions for Ireland; but hon. Gentlemen would be surprised to learn that there were 171 judicial pensions in Ireland. In fact, judicial offices in that country seemed to have been created with a view to their being held only for a short time and pensions granted for retiring from them. In England, no doubt, the business was much larger in proportion than it was in Scotland, the population being 6½ times larger. But, supposing the judicial power of England ought to be 10 times larger than that of Scotland, that would be only 230 pensions, yet there were in England about 700 judicial pensions; in fact, the judicial pensions in England nearly equalled the amount required for the judicial system of Scotland. The public officers in Scotland appeared to pay more attention to the Report of a Committee and a Treasury Circular than was done in England; because in Edinburgh there was the office of sheriff substitute, which had remained in abeyance in consequence of the Circular of the Treasury and the Report of the Committee. This being so, he did not see why offices in England should continue to be filled up. It was said that the Government could not prevent the Judges filling up offices under the statutes; but the Treasury had the power to fix the salary, and if the duties of an office which was once worth £1,000 a-year had become trivial, the Treasury could easily make the salary £250 if the Judges insisted upon making appointments to the offices. Altogether the present state of matters loudly called for relief. He should be very glad to extend the inquiry to Ireland and Scotland; and as regarded Scotland, he was sure the House would find that for the last 30 years offices had been continually cut down, and several Courts had been abolished. The salaries of the Judges of the Supreme Court in Scotland were £3,000, and one of the alterations

  1009
  which ought to be made was to raise these salaries to at least the amount paid to the Judges in Ireland (£3,800), who had far less work than their brethren in Scotland.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY, while deprecating comparison between Scotland and Ireland, said that if the Scotch Members would help the Irish Members to obtain justice for Ireland, the Irish Members would assist the Scotch Members to assert the claims of Scotland. For his own part, he thought the judicial expenditure in Ireland was far too large. Many appointments of a legal and judicial character were made there for no other purpose than jobbing the Government of Ireland. On the part of the majority of the Irish Members, he expressed a hope that endeavours would be made to cut down the overgrown judicial appointments in Ireland. In the Life of Sir Robert Peel his executors had preserved a letter setting forth that the best way of governing Ireland would be to extend judicial offices to members of the Roman Catholic Bar, and thus to keep them always looking to the Government for promotion; and this policy, which was acted upon at the time, seemed to have been adopted by successive Governments. There were many pensions which ought not to be granted, and many offices which ought to be suppressed. Any Government in reviewing these appointments in a spirit of equality towards the three Kingdoms would be supported by the Irish people and by the majority of the Irish Members. He would support the noble Lord if the Motion were pressed to a Division.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he did not know what consultation the hon. Member for Galway had had with Irish Members; but he was much mistaken if he thought that in what he had said he had the concurrence of Irish Members. He entirely dissented from the hon. Member's view; he did not think that the judicial establishment of Ireland was at all overgrown in point of either numbers or salaries. The Judges had only £3,500 a-year, and those of England had £5,500, and yet the Irish Judges had to perform duties equal to those of the English Judges.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHregretted that the Government were not prepared to deal with the question, but he was satisfied with the general tenour
  1010
  of the debate, and, therefore, would not trouble the House to divide.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS, IRELAND.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) £20,961, to complete the sum for the Public Works Office, Ireland.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to call attention to the present state of the Public Works Commission in Ireland. When the Commission was first instituted it was intended that the business of the Department should be transacted by three Commissioners, and that the Chairman, with one Commissioner, should constitute a quorum; that they should meet regularly, and that a Minute should be recorded of their proceedings. In the year 1846 an Act was passed reciting that the three Commissioners were unable to discharge the duties, and appointing two other Commissioners. In 1869, on account of the Commissioners becoming the trustees of a large amount of property, they were constituted a corporation. He had not been able to find any statute passed since then reducing the strength of the Commission; but, nevertheless, the number of Commissioners had dwindled down to three—practically to two, for Sir Richard Griffith, who was the third Commissioner, was far advanced in age, and unable to attend to the duties of the office, so that the retention of his name as one of the Commissioners was an evasion of the Act of Parliament. Sir Richard had been, in fact, pensioned; but in order to comply with the letter of the law, if not with its spirit, his name was still retained on the Commission. Some extraordinary revelations were made during the trials arising out of the dispersion of the Phoenix Park meeting with regard to the manner in which the business of the Board was carried on. A notice was issued by the Commissioners prohibiting the meeting, and the question raised was whether the notice was sufficient to justify the dispersion of the

  1011
  assembly. Mr. Hornsby, Secretary to the Board of Works, was examined on the trial, and stated that for several years there had not been a single formal meeting of the Board; that no minute book was kept; and that the practice was when a letter was received, for a Commissioner to write on the back the answer to be returned. This letter was entered in a book, and this letter-book was the only record of the business done by the Commissioners. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was examined, and stated that he was not responsible for the steps taken to disperse the meeting, which came within the duty of the inferior authorities. He merely gave directions that a notice should be issued prohibiting the meeting. It appeared that one of the Commissioners who was sent for to the Castle refused to act until he got a written order. He accordingly obtained a scrap of paper from the Castle and wrote upon it that 500 copies of the notice should be printed. This was an extraordinary mode of transacting business, and he submitted that the Commissioners ought collectively to meet and decide upon the business of the Board. It was a violation of the spirit and, he believed, of the letter of the Act appointing the Board that no minutes were kept of their proceedings. He wished to urge upon the Government that this Department ought to be presided over by a Minister with a seat in that House, and responsible to Parliament. Several of these Departments in Ireland were removed from the control of that House by these anomalous Boards, which were partly under the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, and partly acting for themselves. He should like also to receive some assurance that these Commissioners were sufficiently numerous to discharge the duties which they were called upon to perform.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PLUNKET)said, it was quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had observed, that in consequence of the inability of Sir Richard Griffith to attend to the business of the Department it had been for some time carried on by two Commissioners, and no representation had been made to the Government that it was not properly performed; but when that fact came to their knowledge they appointed Mr. Roberts, one
  1012
  of the most distinguished engineers in Ireland, as an assisting Commissioner. As far as concerned the appointment of a Minister of Public Works who would be responsible to Parliament with reference to the administration of that Department, he could not now undertake to discuss that question. The Chief Secretary for Ireland or himself would always be ready to answer any question with respect to the administration of the public Departments in Ireland, if due Notice were given.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the senior Commissioner, Sir Richard Griffith, who had performed great services to Ireland and to this country, had retired principally in consequence of extreme old age. He believed Sir Richard did not reside in Ireland. He would be the last person to object to Sir Richard's receiving, as a retiring allowance, his full salary; but he should not be continued as a Commissioner on the books of the Department, but another Commissioner should be appointed. As to the gentleman of great experience in drainage works to whom the Solicitor General for Ireland had referred, he had been placed in the architectural department of the office, which was a department in which his services were the least valuable.
  Vote agreed to.

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (2.) £39,996, to complete the sum for Law Charges, England.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £135,079, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for Criminal Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions in England, including Adjudications under the Criminal Justice Act and the Juvenile Offenders Acts, for Sheriffs Expenses, Salaries to Clerks of Assize and other Officers, and for Compensation to Clerks of the Peace."
  MR. GORSTmoved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £3,874, being the amount of the salaries and expenses of the Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts. His reason for asking the Committee to strike out this item was that the functions of these officers, which had before been mischievous, had now, in consequence of the Treasury

  1013
  Minute, been rendered altogether useless. The Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts were officers who had been in existence for 20 years. After their first appointment there had been a great reduction in the cost of criminal prosecutions; but it was a great question whether that reduction had been of advantage to the country, or whether it was caused by the operations of these officers. The Treasury had adopted the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc, and upon that virtuous plea the Commissioners had been continued down to the present time. Whatever might have been the advantage of their first appointment, he had the authority of distinguished Members of the present Government that their action had been wholly mischievous. The present Home Secretary had expressed that opinion on more than one occasion. The Examiners had only discharged the function of re-taxing in an illegal manner the costs of prosecutions that had been previously taxed in a legal manner, and they had succeeded, by ignorance of the circumstances and by arbitrary rules in disallowing a certain amount of the expenses of criminal prosecutions. This state of things was put an end to in the present year by the Treasury Minute, and these Examiners had now no useful functions to fulfil. The Treasury Minute made an invidious distinction between the costs incurred at assizes and the costs incurred at quarter sessions. When the costs incurred at assizes had been taxed by the officers of assize they were to be paid in full, and were not re-examined by these gentlemen for the purpose of making disallowances. There was to be no audit of the costs of prosecutions at assizes, and what, therefore, was the use of keeping up this expensive staff? But with regard to the costs of prosecutions at the sessions they were to be thrown on the local authorities—although it had been admitted that that was not a proper charge to throw upon them—who were to have a subvention—not a repayment—in consideration of their having thrown upon them a burden which they ought not to bear. That, in his judgment, was a retrograde step, quite contrary to the prevailing opinion of the day, that the cost of administering justice was an Imperial affair, and should be defrayed from the Imperial Exchequer. And the reason
  1014
  given for it was that the taxation of the officers of the Assize Courts could be trusted, while that of the clerks of the peace could not be trusted. The clerks of the peace, however, held as good a position as the clerks of assize. They held a freehold office; they were appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, who represented the Crown, and in Lancashire by the Crown itself, and could not be removed except for misconduct in their office. He would ask whether the Government really thought there was any purpose left for which the Examiners under the present law should be paid £4,000 a-year? He would ask whether the Government thought the system of subventions could last three years? It had been clearly pointed out that the system would produce the greatest confusion in the administration of justice. The magistrates would soon find out that in heavy cases this system of subventions would greatly increase the amount by which the ratepayers would be burdened; whereas if the committals were made to the assizes, the whole of the expenses would come upon the Consolidated Fund. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that magistrates would go on committing prisoners to sessions, when by doing so they would throw a heavy burden on the local rates? The cases for trial at assizes would be multiplied, and the time of the Courts taken up until it would become necessary to increase largely the number of the Judges. He would also ask whether the average would be of the slightest use at the end of three years? The present average had been struck under circumstances of an irritating character. At the end of three years it would be rejected altogether, and the processes under which it had been arrived at would be repudiated. They would find that they had paid £12,000 for a number of accounts and figures and statements which all the local authorities in the country would repudiate. He therefore thought he had established a clear case of saving the country £4,000 a-year, and moved the reduction of the Vote by that amount.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £131,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on

  1015
  the 31st day of March 1876, for Criminal Prosecutions at Assizes and Quarter Sessions in England, including Adjudications under the Criminal Justice Act and the Juvenile Offenders Acts, for Sheriffs' Expenses, Salaries to Clerks of Assize and other Officers, and for Compensation to Clerks of the Peace."—(Mr. Gorst.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked that, although his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham said he would not discuss the Treasury Minute of January last, yet he immediately began it discuss it, and to pour forth a string of opprobrious epithets against the Examiners of Criminal Law Accounts, the system of subventions, and everybody whom he could bring within the reach of his lash. Some time ago there was a discussion brought on by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject of this Minute, and he thought that the merits of the case were then debated, and that he explained the views of the Government with regard to it. His hon. and learned Friend asked whether he thought the system of subventions would continue for three years? "Well, he did not think it was at all likely to continue so long, if the Government were met in the sort of spirit in which it appeared they were to be met. If there were a disposition on the part of Parliament to act liberally towards the local authorities and to make subventions on a liberal scale towards various items of local expenditure, it was but reasonable, and, indeed, it was essential to the maintenance of the system that Parliament should be prepared to maintain a proper system of check and audit of the grants so given. If it were said—"You must not look into expenditure, but you must give us what you tell us you want," he was sure that Parliament would soon get sick of subventions, and the system would probably come to an end within three years. The Examiners were appointed to see that the money granted by Parliament as a matter of grace and favour in order to relieve local funds was properly applied. His hon. and learned Friend, however, wished Parliament to give this money without any check or control whatever. [Mr. GORST: No.] Then he did not know what his hon. and learned Friend intended. How were the Government to know what sum they were to pay? If by the certificate of the Taxing Masters, then how were the Government
  1016
  to exercise any independent audit of their own? During the 10 years from 1837 to 1846, when half the costs were paid by the Treasury and half by the local authorities, the annual average was £214,624; during the next 10 years, when the whole costs were paid by the State, and before Examiners of Costs were appointed, the average rose to £252,740—an increase of £38,116 a-year; and when the Examiners began their work the average fell to £ 195,000. This fact showed that the Examiners exercised a considerable check in the interests of economy. On the other hand, their interference, as it was called, had, no doubt, been annoying and vexatious to the local authorities, and, with regard to assize expenses, it was unjust, because the clerk of assize, who assessed the sums to be paid, had no kind of privity with the local authorities, and if the Examiners disallowed some of the items which he allowed, the county treasurer was obliged to provide the difference. The Government proposed to put an end to this obvious injustice, and to say that the county should not suffer at all in the matter of expenses at assizes, the Government dealing with this question upon Imperial principles, and taking care that these costs were properly taxed. But, then, it was said—"You are making an invidious distinction between assizes and sessions; clerks of the peace are as independent of the county authorities as clerks of assize." This might be, yet there was no doubt that the position of clerks of the peace towards the local authorities differed materially from that of clerks of assize, and it did not follow as a matter of course that you were to put the administration of justice at sessions and assizes upon the same footing. Was Parliament to say that the whole administration of justice throughout the country should be treated as an Imperial affair, and so put an end to the system of the local administration of justice? He did not say that we might not come to this; but the subject was a large one, and ought not to be decided in Committee of Supply upon the question of the salaries of these two officers. The Secretary of State had informed the House that he was considering the tables of fees and other charges, and he had stated that the Government were considering the proper mode of dealing with the costs

  1017
  incurred in the administration of justice. In one particular they thought the duties of the Imperial Government were not yet fully discharged. But the question was not yet ripe for discussion, and it would be wholly premature to attempt to decide it upon a Vote like this.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he did not dispute that the costs should be taxed, and taxed most rigorously. What he objected to was that the local authorities were required to provide taxing officers, and then their taxation was rejected. He admitted that he held the principle that the administration of justice was an Imperial affair, and that it was the duty of the Imperial authorities, and not of the local authorities, to bear the costs of prosecutions and to provide proper officers for auditing the accounts. Let the Treasury send down their own officers. It was not a pleasant duty, and it was not one for which the clerks of the peace would exhibit any great tenacity of adherence; but taxation having been made by persons who were acquainted with local circumstances ought not to be reviewed in London by persons who were ignorant of those local circumstances.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he thought that, on the whole, the Examiners had performed very useful functions, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not informed the Committee what would be their duty in the future. It seemed that they would have no duties under the system which had been resolved on by the Treasury.
  MR. PELLsaid, the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend had been objected to as severe; but they were justified by the facts, and in 1872 the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) said, without objection, that the disallowances by the Examiners amounted to robbery. He could not bring himself to think, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the administration of justice was a local object, or that the sum paid by the Treasury could justly be termed a subvention. How could that be a subvention which fell short of what Parliament undertook to do more than 30 years ago? Sir Robert Peel then intimated that the whole of the charges in respect of criminal prosecutions should be borne by the Treasury. In consequence of the action taken thereupon something like extravagance followed; but that had been
  1018
  corrected, and a considerable reduction in the charges for prosecutions had been the result. After that came the establishment of this office, in which much less than justice was done to the local authorities. Either the charges for criminal prosecutions were proper, or they were not. If they were not, and if the clerks of the peace in the counties did not, as taxing masters, understand their business, then it was the duty of the Government to take the matter in hand and put an end to a state of things which no action of the Court of Quarter Sessions or the ratepayers would be able to set to rights. An expectation had been raised by the Queen's Speech that this subject would be dealt with to some extent at least in connection with the appointment of a public prosecutor, but that expectation had not been realized. The present Prime Minister had stated in 1872 in remarkably terse and powerful terms all that was asked when he used these words—"What they required was fixed charges and prompt payment."—[3 Hansard, ccx. 72.] But they had never got the one nor the other. If his hon. and learned Friend should go to a division he would support him.
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, he had the pleasure of knowing a great many gentlemen who acted as clerks of the peace in various parts of the country, and certainly it appeared to him that they were persons who properly discharged their duties. But, in his opinion, the present system was not satisfactory, and required improvement. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.
  MR. SCOURFIELDentered his protest against treating a question connected with justice as a purely financial matter. Those who had some experience considered that a failure of justice often occurred in consequence of the present unsatisfactory state of things. The cost of criminal prosecutions in counties and boroughs was estimated at £135,000. Was that such a vast sum for securing law and order, seeing that we spent such enormous amounts on other matters? The maintenance of law and order in the country was even of still greater importance than the promotion of Science and Art. Some people spoke as if there were only two parties in the country, but that was a mistake. There was a large party who were strictly neither Conservative nor Liberal, but perhaps

  1019
  more powerful than either, and that was the party which did not like to be annoyed.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had great respect for clerks of the peace, but believed they were not the persons to check their own accounts, and that the supervision employed over them had produced very good effects. He would suggest, however, to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was not possible to avoid causing the annoyance and irritation created by the rejection of accounts or portions of accounts.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they were making a change of system, and he was far from thinking that they could by one blow put it exactly on the footing on which they would like it permanently to stand. Altering the system entirely involved many considerations of a very serious kind. They had two different systems of administration of justice—one carried on by the Judges of the land, assisted by high-paid State functionaries, and paid by the State out of Imperial funds. Concurrently with that there was another system of administration of justice by the unpaid magistracy of the country, assisted by officers paid out of local funds, not in any way subject to Imperial authority. The question was how to harmonize the whole system. The objection to the present system was not so much the amount disallowed as the annoyance occasioned by correspondence between the clerks of the peace and other officers and the Treasury with the Criminal Law Examiners at their backs. He was bound to say, from all he had seen, a very large proportion of the disallowances arose from the non-insertion in the accounts sent up of items such as the number of miles travelled or witnesses for the Crown examined which might easily be supplied, but which were very often omitted. With reference to the immediate future, the Examiners would have important duties to discharge which it would be difficult to dispense with. They would go over the accounts of the prosecutions, which then could be paid in full to the county treasurer; but they would have to check and keep the charges within bounds as to what was allowed. It would be their duty also to check the accounts sent up by the clerks of assize. With regard
  1020
  to the sessions cases he was anxious to work carefully and fairly the system of averages. That was proposed tentatively, and would require to be carefully watched with a view to the re-consideration of the whole question.
  MR. GOSCHENagreed with the general proposition as to the necessity for control where Imperial contributions or subsidies of any kind were given and anything was left in the matter to the local authorities. He was, therefore, disposed to support the Government in that view—that, so long as the administration of justice was local to a certain extent, and so long as the cost borne by the Imperial Exchequer was indispensable, there should be a proper audit at the instance of the Imperial Government; but he did not quite see how there was to be a proper check if the system of allowances was to be done away with.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he thought much of the inconvenience now felt arose from the want of properly defined and known law charges.
  SIR WALTER BARTTELOTtestified that there was great irritation in the country with respect to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, on the ground that payments were to be made on the average of the last three years, during which considerable reductions were made, and arbitrarily made, without any means being afforded for redress. If, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt some means to have the charges which would be allowed more generally known there would be far less difficulty than at present. He could not vote for the Amendment, because some supervision was necessary, although the mode at which it was arrived at was not satisfactory.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTcomplained of the distinction drawn between Courts of Quarter Session and Courts of Assize, deeming the former entitled to consideration on account of their honorary character. He would remind his Friends on the Treasury Bench that in 1872 a Member of the Government (Sir Massey Lopes) described a saving of £13,000 as petty larceny, and said the Examiners were obliged to be vexatious, disagreeable, active, and fussy, to make the Government think they were of some use. He (Mr. Talbot) should like

  1021
  to learn what improvement had been effected since that strong language was used?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the distinction between the two Courts was obvious on the face of the Minute. He hoped that in the case of the Assize Courts, at all events, it would be found that the principle adopted was free from the charge of vexation and irritation, for it was meant to be liberal, and by the contributions made to local finance during the last two years the Government had shown willingness to do the best it could with the whole system of local administration. With respect to this question of assizes it was admitted in the Minute that the Government had not arrived at a complete solution of the difficulty in the way of a satisfactory relationship between the Treasury and the great judicial establishments of the country. That relationship was of a very delicate and difficult character; and though he hoped in the long run to be able to arrive at some proper arrangement by means of which they would be able to put a restraint upon the taxation of costs in the Assize Courts, he did not profess to have yet devised a plan by means of which that was to be done. It was obvious, however, that the Examiners would be of very great service. His own opinion was, that it would be most convenient if they were to have an officer of their own to go round with the officers of assize for the purpose of assisting occasionally in the taxing of the costs. That was a matter which required a great deal of consideration, and it could hardly be dealt with properly until they came to deal with the whole of the questions between the judicial establishments and the Treasury. He hoped that the Home Secretary would be able to meet one of the difficulties by the establishment of a proper system of fees.
  MR. GOSCHEN: You do not surrender the principle of the allowance?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No.
  MR. FLOYERsaid, he did not understand whether the new arrangement was to be permanent, or a new average was to be struck for every year. If this was not explained, he should, another year, vote against the Motion.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the average taken now would be in force for three years, when a fresh one would be made.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the Rules of the House did not allow him to submit an alternative plan now, but he favoured the suggestion of the Home Secretary that officers of the Treasury should be sent to tax the costs on the spot.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 266: Majority 227.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £129,879, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHdrew attention to the fact that the travelling expenses of the Masters in Lunacy were still charged at the old posting rate of 1s. 6d. per mile. He thought this altogether unreasonable at the present day, and he therefore moved to reduce the amount of the Vote by £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £129,379, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1876, for such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Court of Chancery in England as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  MR. W. H. SMITHadmitted that the noble Lord had pointed out what looked like an anomaly; but there was a distinct understanding that the Masters in Lunacy should receive travelling expenses at this rate. The Treasury had no power to reduce the amount, and Lord Hatherley, when Lord Chancellor, having inquired into the matter, had decided that no reduction could be made in the allowance. He was, therefore, obliged, very reluctantly, to oppose the reduction moved by the noble Lord.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpresumed that, although the Treasury could not reduce the Vote, the House of Commons could, and he hoped the hon.

  1023
  Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), in his capacity as Member for Westminster, would assist them in refusing this amount.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 177; Majority 57.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (5.) £46,526, to complete the sum for the Common Law Courts.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHasked under what modifications the new appointment of Queen's Remembrancer had been made, as the Commissioners had reported against the office being filled up? He understood that it was the practice for this officer to be also a Master of the Queen's Bench, his salary for this office being £1,500 a-year, whilst as Remembrancer he had £500 a-year more. There were also five clerks in the office, whilst if the office of Remembrancer were done away with three would be ample.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the office had been filled up; but he could not say what modifications had been made with reference to the appointment. He would, however, make inquiries as to this point. The whole matter as to these offices would be considered under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act Amendment Bill.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, probably the First Lord of the Treasury, or some other Member of the Government who was responsible for the appointment, would be able to state whether, when the office was filled up, the recommendations of the Legal Departments Commissioners were duly carried out.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he filled up the office in deference to the recommendation of the Commissioners. It was thought it was for the public interest that it should be filled up. The appointment was given to a gentleman who was Master of the Queen's Bench—Sir Frederick Pollock. His own impression was that there was no increase of salary whatever.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the recommendation of the Commissioners in their Report was that the office should not be filled up.
  MR. DISRAELI: There was some authoritative recommendation that it should be filled up.
  MR. CHILDERSremarked that no such recommendation was within the knowledge of Parliament. He hoped it would be produced.
  MR. DISRAELIundertook to do so.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £38,635, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, London.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he believed that this money was absolutely thrown away. What was the use of the Bankruptcy Court? In his opinion, it was worse than useless. Persons who committed monstrous frauds and swindles in London managed to get through the Court with the greatest ease with the aid of a clever solicitor. It would really be better to have no Bankruptcy Court at all, and then these predatory classes would not have the chance of making raids on society for, at least, a time.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that he was pretty much disposed to agree with the hon. Baronet. He had done his best to get rid of the separate jurisdiction for Bankruptcy.
  MR. HERMONsaid, he did not quite agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury in his general condemnation of the Bankruptcy Court, although it was not quite so well administered as it ought to be.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked if it was true that the Lord Chancellor had appointed a Committee to inquire into the working of the Bankruptcy Law; and, if so, when was it likely to report?
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he understood the Committee referred to was a Departmental one, and that it was not likely to report before the Prorogation of Parliament.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £299,758, to complete the sum for the County Courts.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKasked for some explanation as to the travelling expenses of the County Court Judges?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the County Court Judges were allowed 3d. per mile when they travelled by rail, 2s. per mile when they travelled by road, and 21 s. per night when absent from home.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £69,186, to complete the sum for the Courts of Probate and Divorce.
  (9.) £9,242, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry.
  (10.) £4,048, to complete the sum for the Land Registry Office.
  (11.) £10,574, to complete the sum for the Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
  (12.) £240,395, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
  MR. GOSCHENinquired what the intention of Her Majesty's Government was with respect to the subvention in aid of local taxation proposed last year in respect of police expenses, and as to which a Continuance Bill for one year had been laid on the Table of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that before a satisfactory arrangement could be made on the subject referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, it was desirable that several questions relating to the police should be considered and brought under the notice of Parliament. Last year, when the Government decided on making subventions to local taxation, it was proposed to add one-fourth to that which had previously been granted. Last year the Government simply passed a Bill to enable them to make the increased payment this year, and he and the Home Secretary had hoped to have been able this Session to have introduced a Bill that would have put the matter on a more permanent footing. The pressure of Business, however, having been considerable, and the question being one which involved points of complexity likely to lead to a discussion, Her Majesty's Government had thought it better to let the matter stand over, and bring in a measure next Session to settle the principle upon which the contributions should be made in future. He should, therefore, ask the House to continue the Act of last Session for one year more.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURpointed out that the policemen now maintained throughout the United Kingdom had largely increased of late years, especially in the English counties, where they had nearly doubled within a few years, and now that so large a portion of the expenses of this force was defrayed out of the Exchequer it might be expected, as the usual result of people who had to spend the money of others, that both the expenses and numbers of the police would
  1026
  rapidly increase. It would, therefore, be a wise and right step to have a full and complete Report on the whole of the police of the United Kingdom, not only as to numbers but as to grades, pay, and all allowances and expenses under heads as clear and specific as for soldiers and sailors in the Army and Navy Estimates, and the expenditure as carefully and strictly examined into as for these two great branches of the public service. At present it was utterly impossible for any private Member to ascertain either the numbers or cost of the force maintained, owing to the objectionable mode in which money was voted for this purpose. All that he could attempt to do was to state the total outlay for police to amount to about £4,000,000 out of the Exchequer, besides the money raised locally for this purpose; and the Government must see that it would be desirable that the Committee should know how many policemen there were throughout the country for which force £4,000,000 were required.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was the intention of the Government to take the matter in hand. He had already given directions for certain statistics to be obtained, and he hoped that before next Session the information would be obtained.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £732,598, to complete the sum for the County and Borough Police, Great Britain.
  MR. WHITWELLcomplained that the Government Inspectors compelled the local authorities in quiet counties, comparatively free from crime, to provide the same number of police per 1,000 as in counties densely populated and rife with crime.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it must not go forth to the public that the Inspectors had been asking generally for more police than there ought to be. He did not mean to say that in some cases this might not have happened; but it was not the intention of the Inspectors or the Government. The whole question of the county and borough police was engaging the attention of the Government, and he hoped next year to be able to state what their proposals were.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKthought that with all these annually increasing Votes it would be most difficult for the Government

  1027
  to control the expenditure and satisfy Parliament that there been proper economy.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £335,227, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments, England and the Colonies.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, he congratulated the Government on the abolition of the Gibraltar Convict Prison. He asked the Home Secretary if he could give the Committee any information respecting the disposal of convict labour. A difficulty had arisen in many prisons how to dispose of the articles produced in them. He admitted the evil that existed in competing with the mat trade. He suggested that the Public Departments should be the purchasers, as they were great consumers of many articles that could be made in prison. In Bavaria most of the blue cloth worn by the soldiers was made in the prisons of that country.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked whether the Convict Prison at Gibraltar had already been broken up, or whether the Government merely intended to break it up?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Convict Prison at Gibraltar had already been broken up, and the greater number of the prisoners had been brought away. With regard to the question of prison labour, he had received frequent deputations from the mat-makers, whose industry did seem to be rather unduly pressed and the mat market glutted by prison labour. This being so, he had endeavoured to turn the attention of the governors of gaols to the production of other articles, and no doubt there were many such articles which Government Departments might take. As one example, he had this year entered into a large contract for making up by convict labour the clothing of the Metropolitan Police, which was furnished in a very good and substantial way and at a somewhat cheaper rate than it could be bought for in the open market. The principle was a sound one, but could only be adopted by degrees.
  Vote agreed to.
  (15.) £75,990, to complete the sum for County Prisons, Great Britain.
  SIR JOHN KENNAWAYsaid, the Prisons Act had produced a great effect
  1028
  in regard to giving us satisfactory and proper prisons; but in regard to prison labour it did not seem to him there was that uniformity throughout the country which it was the object of the Act to enforce. In some prisons the prisoners were kept at hard labour during the whole of their imprisonment, in others only for the first three months. He thought it was questionable whether, after the first three months, labour at the crank should be continued, and considered that industrial labour might then be substituted for penal labour. At all events, it should be the rule and not the exception. The great difficulty was found to arise from the number of short sentences, people having been imprisoned, again and again, for periods under 15 days. Then, there was another point to which he wished to direct attention, which was, whether, as the Government paid so largely for the maintenance of prisoners, some further assistance should not be given to the Prisoners' Aid Societies, which did so much good in saving discharged prisoners from their old associates?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved, that the different matters mentioned by the hon. Baronet were now under the consideration of the Government. The Prisons Act had been in operation for 10 years, and he thought the time had come when a general survey of its operation should be made by the Government. Ample time had been given people to make up their minds with respect to it. It was very desirable that it should be known as a matter of certainty what hard labour was, and that it should mean the same thing throughout the whole country. He did not think there was that uniformity which might easily be obtained by a careful investigation. With regard to Prisoners' Aid Societies he could make no promise on the part of the Government. He could only accept and acknowledge the good which they might do when conducted on safe, sound, and prudent principles.
  MR. W. T. STANHOPEremarked that the practical way of reforming prisoners was by teaching them how to obtain a livelihood by honest labour.
  MR. H. T. COLEsaid, that a man should be taught some trade which would be useful to him when out of gaol. No fewer than 15 or 16 different

  1029
  kinds of labour were taught in some of our gaols—Preston, for instance. The American prisons were absolutely remunerative, and made a considerable return to the State, and when the prisoners were discharged they were presented with a sum of money which they had earned, and which enabled them to live until they obtained work, and often kept them from thieving and stealing again. It was worth remarking, in illustration of the results of different systems, that while the re-committals in Devonport Gaol were only 6 per cent, those in Exeter Gaol were 35 per cent.
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) £154,527, to complete the sum for Reformatories and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
  (17.) £22,758, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had brought this subject several times under consideration, and he would only remark that there was quite as much reason now for the attention of the House of Commons and the Government being directed to it as there had been before. The amount of the Vote appeared as £30,258; but in addition there had been Votes to the amount of £5,240 for repairs and new works. Last year, also, that Vote amounted to £5,000. He wished to suggest that it would be desirable that a marginal note should be attached stating what sums had been taken for this asylum in previous votes. He would also suggest that the Government should consider during the Recess the desirability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the lunacy system in the Three Kingdoms. The lunacy laws of the Three Kingdoms were different both with respect to private asylums and convict establishments. There was an additional reason why this subject should be considered by the House, which was that a sum of 4s. a-day given as a subvention would in a short time amount to £1,000,000 a-year. The Scotch had assistance given for their lunatics which was not given in England or Ireland, and in Ireland he thought wrong steps had been taken. He hoped early next Session a Committee would be appointed to take into consideration what improvements could be effected in the administration of the law in relation to criminal lunatics.
  MR. DODSONwished to know whether the reduction in the Vote for clothing and victualling was due to economy in the purchase of articles of clothing and consumption?
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he hoped some inquiry would be made with the view of ascertaining the reason why criminal lunatics, which cost only £15 per head per annum in some counties, cost £45 in others. He wished particularly that Perth and Broadmoor should be contrasted.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the reduction in the charge of victualling was entirely owing to a difference of prices.
  Vote agreed to.
  (18.) £14,090, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Charges, England.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Thursday;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  NORWICH ELECTION.
  Her Majesty's Answer to Address reported, as followeth:—
  "I have received the Joint Address of the two Houses of Parliament in reference to the Report made by the Judge selected to try a Petition in respect of the Election and Return for the City of Norwich.
  "And I have given directions accordingly for the appointment of the gentlemen named in the Address to be Commissioners for the purpose of making the inquiry prayed for."
  It being now five minutes to Seven of the clock, the House suspended its sitting.
  The House resumed its sitting at Nine of the clock.

  ARMY—CASE OF THOMAS DUFFY—CURRAGH CAMP.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. MELDONrose to call attention to the dismissal of Thomas Duffy, late Brigade Sutler, Curragh Camp, county of Kildare, and to move for an Inquiry into the circumstances under which his dismissal took place. The hon. Gentleman said, this matter was one of those

    1031
    which were generally called a private grievance, and was not a matter of general importance; but he thought if he established the facts of his case the House would not hesitate to interpose. Mr. Duffy must necessarily, unless some relief was given to him by the Government, after 20 years' service, betake himself to the workhouse, because all he was worth in the world was expended in the erection of a building in the county of Kildare, and his capital in it was now sought to be destroyed. Mr. Duffy's connection with Kildare commenced in 1855, at which time the system of military canteens had not been introduced, and civilians were allowed to supply groceries and spirituous liquors to the troops. Mr. Duffy made an agreement, and one of the terms of that agreement was that he should hold the position of sutler at the camp during good behaviour, and that he should not knowingly permit or suffer anything contrary to the rules and regulations of the commanding officer. Immediately on signing that agreement, Mr. Duffy expended a sum of between £2,000 and £2,500 in erecting a canteen, and from that time up to the 9th of February, 1874, he carried on the business of camp sutler without a single complaint being made against him. But on the 9th of February, 1874, he was told he was not to open his canteen until he had seen Major General Wardlaw, the commanding officer. Mr. Duffy saw the commanding officer, who told him that complaints had been made that he had served some soldiers with drink during the prohibited hours on Sunday. There was no foundation whatever for the accusation, but the War Office took the same view of the case as the General commanding, and ultimately Mr. Duffy received a letter from the War Office telling him that he might, if he could, dispose of his canteen building to any person he might find, subject to the approval of the military authorities, but that if it were not so disposed of or removed before a certain date, it would become the property of the War Office. That was surely a most arbitrary procedure. Had the building in question been a wooden hut it might have been removed by Mr. Duffy; but to command him to remove a stone and mortar structure under the penalty of its being confiscated, was manifestly unjust, as well
    1032
    as unreasonable. On July 21, although Mr. Duffy was constantly demanding inquiry, a sentry was put at the door, and no article was allowed to be removed. Assuming that Mr. Duffy had been guilty of the charge, the next circumstance put the authorities in the wrong. On August 20, when the Government knew everything, Mr. Duffy was told he could not conduct the business any more, and that another gentleman had been appointed in his place, who was to give him £1,100 for the building, the stock to be taken on valuation. Mr. Duffy, however, received a verbal message that he was to have nothing to do with Captain Ingham, and that he was to sell his stock and to be off. All that Mr. Duffy asked for was an inquiry, and that he might be told what the accusation against him was. The stock was worth £600 or £700 when Captain Ingham was in negotiation, but when it was sold it realized only £300. On February 4, Mr. Duffy was told to remove the building, which had cost him between £2,000 and £3,000, by March 31. Mr. Duffy presented a memorial protesting against being dealt with in so partial a manner, and the Secretary of State met the memorial in the most courteous way; but on April 30, 1875, Mr. Duffy was told that the Secretary of State saw no ground for altering the decision already made. Under the circumstances, he thought that the Government ought to grant Mr. Duffy an inquiry.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the dismissal of Thomas Duffy, late Brigade Sutler, Curragh Camp, county of Kildare."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    LORD EUSTACE CECILregretted that the hon. Member should have given himself the trouble of bringing this case before the House, and that he should have occupied the House with a case which might have been brought before the Courts of Law if there was any grievance in the matter. He, however, contended that no such grievance existed, and could show, on the contrary, that Mr. Duffy had been very leniently dealt with by the War Department. The case was simply this: On the 8th February last year, 30 or 40 soldiers were found on Duffy's premises

    1033
    drinking malt liquors and spirits during prohibited hours, in consequence of which Lord Sandhurst, the general officer commanding, ordered the canteen to be closed. Representations were at once made to the War Department, representing the hardships of the case, and a memorial was presented stating that Mr. Duffy had for 45 years been Keeping canteens; and it was also alleged that in the present case the fault rested not with Mr. Duffy, but with his servant. He was therefore allowed to re-open the canteen from the 8th of March to the 30th June in order that he might dispose of his perishable stock, and then the canteen was closed. Meanwhile Mr. Duffy had written asking that he might receive some compensation for the removal of the hut, and he founded his complaint upon the fact that the hut had been built by himself and was a brick structure; but it was found upon inquiry that it was one of the sutler's old wooden huts, and that he had erected upon it some brick buildings, knowing at the time that he did it at his own risk, and that the buildings were removable at 14 days' notice. There was no knowledge on the part of the War Department of any agreement between Mr. Duffy and Captain Ingham. On August 21 the general officer commanding reported that the number of canteens was already sufficient, and the result was that an arrangement entered into between Mr. Duffy and Captain Ingham fell to the ground. Mr. Duffy was informed that he must get out of the building by September 30; but the time was afterwards lengthened to November 25, and further to December 31, and on January 12 Mr. Duffy was still in possession of the premises. Although the removal was to take place on the 7th June, he was still in possession at the present time, and so far from the War Department having been severe, they gave him three months in which to get rid of his perishable stock; and he also had something like 12 months allowed without enforcing that removal which might have been enforced upon 14 days' notice. So far from having anything to complain of, the War Department had done all in their power to meet his case. If he had anything to complain of, his case was better suited for the consideration of a Court of Law than of Parliament, and if he thought
    1034
    that he had any grievance he should consult his solicitor.
    MR. MELDONsaid, it was evident from the statement to which the House had just listened that the sole accusation against Mr. Duffy was that some soldiers were found drinking on his premises at forbidden hours. Even if that accusation were well-founded, was it any sufficient reason for driving into the workhouse a man who had so long properly conducted himself? It was scarcely fair that a public servant having a grievance of this kind should be told to go to a Court of Law. Let there be an inquiry into the facts of the case, or let compensation be given to Mr. Duffy for his buildings.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 72: Majority 39.

  CENTRAL ASIA.

    MOTION FOR PAPERS.
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANErose to call attention to the progress of Russia in Central Asia; and to move an Address for Copies of any Papers relating to the occupation of the Khanate of Khiva by Russia. The hon. Gentleman said, that a fortnight since a very interesting discussion took place upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. J. R. Yorke) in reference to Turkey and her distant provinces, and throughout the speeches made on that occasion there was evident a feeling of anxiety and uneasiness with respect to the influence of Russia in those provinces. And not unnaturally so, for there was no country, not excepting Germany, that had made such extraordinary progress as Russia within the last half century. She had had the good fortune to be governed by Sovereigns of the highest capacity and the loftiest ambition; and the present Sovereign was inferior to none of his predecessors in those great qualities. The Emperors of Russia had had the sagacity to select as Ministers and Ambassadors men of the most pre-eminent ability to regulate the destinies of that great country. Not content with her present condition, Russia had her gaze fixed upon both the West and the East. In the West, in Europe, she had set her face towards an unfrozen sea; and in the East she looked to extending

    1035
    her influence over the whole of Central Asia. There was a phrase which said that Russia always had an Eastern iron in the fire. Therefore it was necessary, and he trusted that he should not be thought unduly presuming if he ventured to call attention to the fact of Russia having made recently a great addition to her territorial power in Central Asia; and also to call attention to a question that was of momentous interest to our own country. He had the very highest authority for saying that this was a question which ought not to be overlooked, and which might lead to the very gravest consequences, not only in the East, but also in the West. He quoted, in the recent debate to which he had referred, a most remarkable letter, written on his deathbed by Fuad Pasha to the Sultan, in which he said—
    "Russia is the inveterate enemy of Turkey. If I had been myself a Russian Minister, I would have overturned the world to conquer Constantinople."
    He went on to say—
    "The indifference of England to the events of Central Asia astonishes and alarms me. What alarms me most, however, is the considerable change which the pacification of the Caucasian Provinces has brought about in the position of Russia. To me it is beyond doubt that, in any future events, the most serious attacks of the Russians will be directed against our Provinces of Asia Minor. I can conceive of many acts of folly of all Governments; it is even one of their prerogatives to commit them. But I confess I have been unable to fathom the profound wisdom of the Government which, with such strange indifference, permits the greatest despotism in the world to put itself at the head of 100,000,000 men, and arm them with all the appliances of civilization, to swallow up at every step provinces and kingdoms as large as Prance; and while it hems in Asia with its arms, and, on the other hand, undermines Europe by the agency of Panslavism, comes forward periodically protesting its love for peace, and its sincere resolution no more to seek for further conquests."
    These were words which were deserving of our serious attention. In a remarkable book, recently published—the Life of Count Rostoyschine, who was Governor of Moscow when Russia, to recover her independence, made the grandest sacrifice a nation ever made—Count de Ségur quoted the Russian Press, and affirmed the opinion given at the time by Count Rostoyschine of the relative position of England and Russia. It was this—
    "To overcome England we must divide Turkey, according to our ancient plan—that is
    1036
    to say, we must take Moldavia, and Roumania, and Constantinople, dividing the remaining territory between Prussia and Austria, secure Egypt for Franco, then send 50,000 men through Persia to India, and drive England out of all her Eastern possessions."
    That opinion the Russian papers of the present day entirely approved. He should not quote the views on the subject of all the great authorities in this country who had always looked with anxiety to the progress of Russia in Central Asia; but it was clear, he thought, that we must abandon our policy of indifferentism, or, as it might be termed, "masterly inactivity" in the case, when it was borne in mind that England was not only an European, but an Asiatic Power; and it had been well said that it was India which gave an Imperial character to the English nation. We must not be told that there was no immediate danger, for that was the opinion expressed before the Crimean War; and the consequence of the indifference and ignorance of the public mind upon these questions was that complications arose which drifted us into difficulties. He would briefly tell the House what had been the progress of Russia in Central Asia since the Crimean War. She had reduced the whole country between the Black and the Caspian Seas. The whole of the Caucasus had been brought under her dominion, and there was nothing to prevent her from taking the Asiatic Provinces of Turkey and carrying a railway through Teheran up to Cabul. East of the Caucasus her progress was still more remarkable. Since the Crimean War her troops had marched over those wild steppes like a tidal wave, and since the attack on Khiva she had the Oxus as her frontier. Through the Sea of Aral and the Oxus they had water communication almost to our Indian frontier, and if they had a railway only 200 miles long between the Black Sea and the Caspian, the construction of which was now contemplated, they could transport any number of troops in an incredibly short space of time down to the Oxus, and close to our Indian frontier; and that surely was a position which the House ought to look upon as one which demanded the gravest consideration. It was said that Russia could not move her Army through this wild, savage country, occupied by nomad tribes. But what was the state of affairs? He found that on

    1037
    the Caspian Sea, Russia had 17 steamers, of, together, 980 horse-power, and 4,400 tons, and 17 sailing vessels, of, together, 1,250 tons. That fleet was considered sufficient to transport in a very short time half, if not the whole, of a division across the Caspian Sea. On the Sea of Aral were stated to be six Russian steamers of 186-horse power and 600 tons. The regular forces which had been advanced to the Russian frontier districts consisted of 18 battalions and four batteries, to which, however, were to be added considerable contingents of the Tshernomonic and Caucasian line Cossacks. In reality, that force was to be considered only as the vanguard of the Russo-Asiatic Army. After the complete subjection of the Caucasus, the main body of that Army was now the so-called Army of the Caucasus, of which the front was continuously and exclusively directed towards Asia, and which might be transported at any given moment to Central Asia by the fleet of the Caspian Sea. That explained why that Army had not been dissolved after the subjection of the population of the Caucasus. It was composed now of six divisions of Infantry, one division of Cavalry, 31 batteries with 167 cannon, two battalions of sappers and miners, and 36 garrison battalions—altogether, when on the war footing, 163,759 men, of whom 90,000 to 100,000 might be put into the field immediately. One of the newly-formed railway battalions had already been joined to that Army. [Mr. BOURKE: May I ask from what authority the hon. Gentleman is quoting?] From The Cologne Gazette; but he was about to move for Papers, with the view of obtaining more accurate information on the subject. As it was, he, of course, could only take his information from the best authorities he could find. Now, two reasons had been assigned by Russia for the constant advance which he had mentioned. The first was that we had set her the example—that within a comparatively short time we had annexed the Punjab and Scinde, and that we were the most aggressive Power that had ever appeared in the East. He wished, however, to point out to those who argued in that way that nothing we could do in the East could injure Russia. We could not attack Moscow or St. Petersburg. We did not question the right of Russia to protect her frontier;
    1038
    but there was danger to us from her progress. The position of Russia marching towards our Indian frontier and our annexation of Provinces for our own safety were two very different things. But then the Russian authorities alleged that the course she was pursuing was taken in the interests of civilization. That, however, was, he contended, a plea which should in no degree affect the feeling with which we ought to regard the progress which she was making. Somebody had well said, that even if there was no immediate danger, no man would like to have always a certain number of armed men looking over his garden wall. It was not Russian arms that we had reason to fear so much as Russian influence. Every step she made had its effect in Lucknow and Delhi. There was something grand in the idea of an irresistible destiny that must drive Russia on; and a feeling that, whatever happened, Russia must advance. What was the opinion of Sir Henry Rawlinson, one of the most impartial judges, and a man who knew that question thoroughly, on that matter? In his interesting book on Progress of Russia in Central Asia, Sir Henry Rawlinson said—
    "All the good intentions of the Emperor have proved in practice to be mere temporary interruptions to the one uniform career of ox-tension and aggrandizement, and we may be well assured that the continued advance of Russia is as certain as the movement of the sun in the heavens. Whether from the natural law of increase, or from the preponderating weight of the military classes thirsting for distinction, or from the deliberate action of a Government which aims at augmented power in Europe through extension in Asia, or from all these causes combined, we are told on high authority that in spite of professions of moderation, in spite of the Emperor's real pacific tendencies, in spite even of our remonstrances, and possibly our threats, Russia will continue to push on towards India until arrested by a barrier which she cannot remove or overstep. If this programme be correct, it means, of course, contact and collision, and such I believe to be the inevitable result in due course of time."
    Let them come to the facts. He believed the Emperor and the Emperor's Ministers and Ambassadors to be as pacific in their intentions as they stated; but there was what was called the Old Party in Russia, and also a population in that country who impelled that great Empire on towards our Asiatic frontiers. In 1865 the most solemn assurances were given by the Russian Government that

    1039
    that career of conquest was ended, and yet within a very short time afterwards they advanced their frontier hundreds of miles further. In 1869, again, the same positive assurances that Russia should not advance were given to Sir Douglas Forsyth, who was sent to St. Petersburg on a special mission; but a few months later she had hundreds of miles more territory. Samarcand was not evacuated as had been promised, and she had extended her dominion nearly to Khiva. Well, in 1871, what happened? That distinguished man, Count Schouvaloff, was sent on a special mission to England to prove that there was no intention on the part of the Russian Government to occupy Khiva; that she was only going to punish the Khivans for offences committed against her subjects, and would then leave the country altogether. She had certainly kept the word of promise to the ear; but the whole of that district was under the command of Russia. In the Treaty concluded between Russia and Khiva, the Khan acknowledged himself—
    "to be the humble servant of the Emperor of All the Russias. He renounced all direct and friendly relations existing with neighbouring rulers and Khans, and of concluding with them commercial and other treaties of any kind soever, and bound himself not to undertake any military operation against them without the knowledge and permission of the superior Russian authority in Central Asia. The whole of the right bank of the Amu Daria, and the lands adjoining thereunto, which have hitherto been considered as belonging to Khiva, shall pass over from the Khan into the possession of Russia, together with the people dwelling and camping thereon. Those portions of land on the right bank which are at present the property of the Khan, and of which the usufruct has been given by him to Khivan officers of State, become likewise the property of the Russian Government, free of all claims on the part of previous owners. The Khan may indemnify them by grants of land on the left bank. In the event of a portion of such right bank being transferred to the possession of the Emir of Bokhara by the will of His Majesty the Emperor, His Majesty the Khan of Khiva shall recognize the latter as the lawful possessor of such portion of his former dominions, and shall renounce all intentions of re-establishing his authority therein. Russian steamers and other Russian vessels, whether belonging to the Government or to private individuals, shall have the free and exclusive right of navigating the Amu Daria River. Khivan and Bokharian vessels may enjoy the same right only by special permission from the superior Russian authority in Central Asia. Russian merchants shall have the right of carrying their goods through the Khivan territory to all neighbouring countries free of Customs duties (free transit trade). Complaints
    1040
    and claims of Khivans against Russian subjects shall be referred to the nearest Russian authorities for examination and satisfaction, even in the event of such complaints and claims being raised by Russian subjects within the confines of the Khanate. A fine is inflicted on the Khanate of Khiva to the extent of 22,000,000 roubles, to be paid in 19 years."
    Russia not having carried out her pledges, the question arose, what was to be done? A great deal had been said about a neutral zone of territory; but, when they had arranged all that, it would exist only as long as suited the will of Russia. No neutral zone and no Treaty was worth anything. It was a monstrous thing that after all our sacrifices in the Crimean War Russia should have been suffered to tear up the Treaty which excluded her fleets from the Black Sea. He would, however, suggest two things which he thought could be done and which would be most beneficial and advantageous to both parties. Again he would quote the high authority of Sir Henry Rawlinson, who said—
    "Our proper course, then, as it seems to me, is, in the first place, to assure ourselves of the principles of the policy which we are in future to pursue in Central Asia; and, in the second place, to keep the execution of that policy exclusively in our own hands, entirely under our own control."
    In deciding on what we intended to do, we should leave ourselves free to act without having any understanding with Russia should certain eventualities occur. But he had another and more practical suggestion to make to the House. The key of the position at the present moment was Afghanistan. In 1869, when the late Lord Mayo was at Umballa, Shere Ali, the Ameer of Afghanistan, visited him and was received with all the courtesy and dignity which distinguished everything that Lord Mayo did. Shore Ali left that Durbar so delighted with his reception that for some period we were perfectly in the ascendant in Afghanistan; but the policy since pursued had made us unpopular in that country. We had interfered when we ought not to have done so, but now was the time when we should repair our error. Afghanistan was a district which we must look to for grappling with Central Asia, and therefore he thought we ought to have a Resident of great consideration and dignity at the Court of the Ameer of Afghanistan and also a Resident at each considerable town to represent the English nation. There would be a good

    1041
    opportunity very soon of using our influence there, when that event occurred which was now enlisting the sympathies of the whole of India and England—namely, the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to India. If, when His Royal Highness was at Lahore, he would receive the Ameer of Afghanistan in the same manner in which Lord Mayo did, he (Mr. B. Cochrane) believed it would have an effect perfectly extraordinary upon our relations with that country. We had in a manner made ourselves responsible for Afghanistan. At the present time, if he was not mistaken, we actually subsidized the Ameer. But we ought not to end there. We ought to do our best to bind Afghanistan in every way to England, and if we did not accomplish it we should be at the mercy of Russia and be involved in future complications of the most difficult character. He did not say we ought to occupy Cabul, or anything of that kind; but in every friendly way—by means of commercial treaties, for example—we ought to seek to unite the interests of the two countries, and the first thing to be done with that object was to have a Resident at the Court of the Ameer. The importance of this policy would perhaps be appreciated when it was remembered that there were no fewer than 12 passes leading from Afghanistan into India. There was another point demanding notice. As Russia contemplated the extension of a line of railway into the heart of Asia, so ought we in every possible way to develop our communications with the East. Some time ago we had an opportunity of acquiring a dominant interest in the Suez Canal, and bitterly he regretted that advantage was not taken of it. The Canal was at present entirely in the hands of French employés, and at any moment they could shut it up, as was threatened last year. To this matter our attention ought to be turned, and also to our relations in other respects with Egypt, a country which, under the Government of Nubar Pasha, was developing more rapidly than any other in the world. Then there was the proposed Euphrates Valley line of railway. That line could be constructed without a penny expense to the British Government. A company was ready to undertake the task, and its importance to us would be immense. He could have proceeded on a question like this at
    1042
    any length; but he did not wish to do more than to put clearly before the House what the position of the case was. It was in no spirit of antagonism to Russia that he had brought forward this subject. On the contrary, he had not said one word which reflected on the Government of that country. His feeling towards that Government was one of the greatest admiration. But it was necessary that the relative positions of this country and Russia should be clearly defined, and that each should know what the other wanted. The danger was when events became confused, and events occurred when no one knew what course to adopt. Russia was one of the most magnificent countries in Europe, and it should not be forgotten that she was the first country to break down the supremacy of the First Empire. Our attention, he regretted to say, was but little called to matters of this kind. We must bear in mind that we were not only a European Power, but also a Colonial Empire; and above all an Asiatic Empire. He gladly recognized that Lord Derby, as the head of the Foreign Office, had shown the greatest courage, combined with the most admirable discretion, and also great resolution combined with the soundest judgment; and he felt confident that not only the Foreign Secretary, but Her Majesty's Government in general, were resolved that the greatness of the British Empire should not be impaired.
    MR. HANBURY, in seconding the Motion, said, he desired to imitate the tone of moderation which the hon. Member who had just spoken had adopted. While he regarded as most extravagant the expectations which were sometimes indulged in as to the advantages which would accrue to civilization from the advance of Russian arms in Central Asia, he was at the same time unable to join in the blame which many persons cast upon the Russian Government. It was clear, however, that Russia was not herself so thoroughly civilized that she could spread civilization over the half of Asia. Russia was essentially an Asiatic and not a European Power, and the civilization that she produced must, of necessity, be of an Asiatic character, and that civilization would have to be administered in Asia by lieutenants far removed from the capital, and exercising with almost an iron sway the rigid rules of

    1043
    despotism. Very little had resulted from the vast conquests in Turkestan, from which much benefit to civilization was expected. An eminent and impartial authority on this subject was Mr. Schuyler, the first Secretary of the American Legation at St. Petersburg, who, in a Report he had made to the United States, quoted instance after instance in which the prefects of various districts had levied taxes, and spent the money on their private expenses, while the same thing was done with the deposits in the savings banks, ostensibly established for the benefit of the population. Both with regard to industry and commerce the Russian Administration had done comparatively nothing, and next to nothing had been done in the matter of education. That was from the Report of Mr. Schuyler. For his own part, he accepted it cum grano salis; but, still, there could be no doubt that the civilization had advanced less than was expected. The same authority stated, with reference to commerce, that the vast trade in Central Asia had fallen off rather than increased, and that, in fact, there was very little opportunity for trade there. Small as this trade was, it was burdened with heavy taxation, as stated in Mr. Mitchell's Report, our attaché at St. Petersburg, especially cotton goods and tea. But, while it was impossible to praise Russia, it was, at the same time, difficult to blame her for the course she had pursued. We ourselves had advanced exactly in the same way in India as she had advanced in Central Asia, sometimes by right, and sometimes by might. During the last 30 years Russia had advanced some 1,000 miles in Asia, while we had advanced about as far in India, and we, moreover, had acquired fertile and productive territory, while she had conquered mere barren wastes and parched deserts. There was, however, in our advances one striking difference between the two countries, and that was that we had never shown such an ostentatious disregard for our promises and engagements as Russia had done. It was doubtful whether, in the whole of our history of conquest in America, Africa, and Asia, there had ever been shown, either in the case of an Indian Prince, a New Zealand Maori, or even an African Prince, such sweet credulity and such innocent confidence as was shown by one
    1044
    of our great Ministers of State in the answer given to the last and grossest violation of a promise on the part of Russia. He referred to the despatch of Earl Granville, which was sent to Prince Gortchakoff when the solemn engagement with regard to Khiva in 1873 was violated. When no faith was to be placed in such promises, Earl Granville wrote that Her Majesty's Government saw no practical object in examining too minutely as to how far those arrangements were in strict accordance with the assurances given by Count Shouvaloff, and that each step of that progress rendered it more desirable that a free and frank understanding should continue to exist as to the relative position of Russian and British interests. The question, however, which possessed most interest for us was—Where was Russia to stop? There was no doubt that she must, and would, creep on to the borders of Afghanistan and of Kashgar. But what would occur when she had reached those limits? The condition of Afghanistan was so unsettled and so uncivilized that it would be difficult to put a stop to Russian intrigues in that country, more especially as, notwithstanding that we subsidized the Ameer, no Englishman was allowed to set foot upon his territory. The position of Kashgar, however, was very different. The people of that country were stated, upon very high authority, to be in a very comfortable condition, and were said to have attained a considerable degree of civilization, violence and crime being almost unknown among them. Russia, therefore, would have no excuse for invading that country on the plea of its turbulence, while its social condition was such as to give no hopes for commerce. It was a singular fact that, while Russia had actually lost by her commercial and financial relations with her conquered territories in Central Asia, she had managed to give them good military roads, which were almost unknown within her own proper territories, while her occupation of those vast and unproductive districts was military rather than commercial. Finding that Russia had made her advance under such very suspicious circumstances, and that the Russian papers were talking of the alarm which it must create in the English mind, we naturally asked what was to be the recompense for all this great expenditure of life and property?

    1045
    The answer to that question would probably be found in the fact that her conquests were daily bringing her nearer to vast and rich countries. It was not to be anticipated for the present, at all events, that she would attempt to attack India; but she might easily interfere very seriously with our trade with China in the East, and with our communications with India in the "West. It was, however, at ports that trade must be tapped, and it was in acquiring ports that Russia would undoubtedly try to make her way. Step after step was being taken by Russia to reach the Pacific—the great page on which the future history of the world's traffic would be written—and which would more than rival the Atlantic. Russia would be able to bring great influence to bear upon China by land, and to get advantages which we in the more distant West could not hope to obtain. Those advantages would be of no use unless she could reach the ocean, and this she was continuously struggling to do. She was already strong on the Mediterranean and the Caspian; and Mr. Pal-grave, one of the highest authorities on questions relating to Asia Minor, had shown that Russia's nearest route to the Pacific was the route by the Black Sea, the Euphrates Valley, and the Persian Gulf. He had travelled every inch of it himself, and was therefore able to appreciate Mr. Palgrave's view. When Mr. Palgrave wrote he anticipated the advance of Russia would be checked by the creation of a new Mahomedan power in the north-east of Asia Minor; but his anticipations had not been fulfilled, and the very circumstance in which he saw an obstacle had proved to be a facility to Russian advance, for the 16,000 or 17,000 Circassians, who, it was thought, would have formed a Turkish alliance, had returned to the Caucasus, and were serving under Russia, and of the few who remained in Turkey, several told him that when their term of service was over they would join their friends in the Caucasus because the Russians were treating them so well. India virtually began at Bagdad; one-third of the population were Indian subjects or Indian refugees; here were some of the richest of Indian traders and some of the most rebellious of Indian subjects; and here could be stirred up an opposition to us which might ferment
    1046
    and fester throughout India, and be most dangerous to our political influence in the North of India. Although Russia was not inclined to make any direct attack upon our Indian Empire, she possessed wonderful facilities for creating diversions against us, and stirring up Mussulmans to effect her purpose in Europe and down the Tigris Valley. The question was, how we were to meet her? We might easily retaliate by stirring up her own subjects against her in Turkestan and China. But he did not think that was a policy which this country would be prepared to adopt. Another policy which was advocated was that of alliance with Russia. He did not think that was a policy from which they were likely to derive much satisfaction; because, however anxious the Emperor of Russia might be to keep his promises, his lieutenants would not carry them out. What remained for them was what always remained for them—to trust to themselves. Surely they had got courage enough to defend those possessions which they had gained. No doubt if we trusted to our soldiers our possessions in India would be safe; but, unfortunately, we had to trust to our statesmen, who did not exhibit the courage and determination that were displayed by our soldiers in the field. Did those who took the humanitarian view of our policy in India, and who talked of the necessity of educating India to govern herself, remember that the Natives of India belonged to a race who could not defend themselves, and that the moment we left India the Mussulmans would again re-assert their supremacy? There was now, moreover, another invader at the gates of India, and he would ask whether, in the event of our leaving India, there would be any advantage to the Natives of that country in the substitution either of Mussulman supremacy or Russian supremacy for our rule? About two years ago the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs delivered a lecture in King's Lynn in which he adverted to the causes of our failure in India. He said that what we wanted was that our foreign policy in regard to India should be under one body and one head, but that at present it was committed to four different bodies—the Government of India, the Secretary of State for India, the Indian Council, and

    1047
    the Foreign Office; and the hon. Member (Mr. Bourke) asked whether it was wonderful, under these circumstances, that our policy should be variable, muddling, and unintelligible? The hon. Gentleman was now in Office himself, and he hoped he would be able to give them some information as to whether these four bodies acted more harmoniously.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Papers relating to the occupation of the Khanate of Khiva by Russia."—(Mr. Baillie Cochrane.)
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it was nearly 30 years ago since he had filled a post on what was then the extreme North-Western frontier of India, and since that time he had been called upon both officially and unofficially to turn his attention to the subject now before the House. The longer he had lived, and the more he had thought about it, the more decidedly he had come to a conclusion diametrically opposite to that of the hon. Member (Mr. Baillie Cochrane). In his view the true policy for England to pursue with regard to the advance of Russia in Central Asia was that which the hon. Gentleman had described as "masterly inactivity." He believed the present danger was much exaggerated; but no doubt sooner or later Russia might come to be a disagreeable neighbour in India. The wisdom of a policy of "masterly inactivity" was this—that he did not see any other course that would not make matters worse and lead to dilemma, expense, and difficulty. In such a case it was sometimes best to do nothing. Hon. Members opposite had explained the advance of Russia and the danger of that advance; but when they came to suggest a remedy they were very weak and imperfect indeed. He could not, indeed, gather what were the remedies they suggested. The hon. Member who brought this subject before the House told them of one remedy—the benign influence which the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales would exert over the whole of Hindostan when he visited India. The hon. Member for Tamworth (Mr. Hanbury) did not discover any remedy whatever for the dangers from Russian advance, except that we must
    1048
    rely on our own strength and ability to defend ourselves. Well, that was the true remedy. But if we were to defend ourselves we ought to wait until we were attacked. To anticipate attack would only create greater difficulty and danger. For himself, he had never been accused of an indisposition to progress, and he had always been inclined to go as far as it was prudent to go. There were, however, some circumstances under which, when you could not advance without danger, the best thing was to stand still. The best policy under present circumstances was to try how it would answer to do nothing. On each side of that great mountain barrier—the Himalayas—were two great countries, one was India and the other Turkestan. A hundred years ago England had made very small progress in conquering India, and Russia had made small progress in the direction of acquiring Turkestan; but since then England had progressed until she had acquired almost the whole of India, which, if not very profitable, was governed without loss; while Russia had by no means made equal advances in Turkestan, and had not succeeded in making the country pay. Under these circumstances, was it possible for us to prevent the advance of Russia in Turkestan if she chose to advance? He asserted that we were not in a position to do so, and if we made the attempt we should either be treated with contempt or else obtain those promises that were only made to be broken. For us to attempt successfully to prevent Russia's advance into Turkestan was, he believed, perfectly out of the question; but, for his part, he regarded it as being very doubtful whether Russia would incur the enormous expense of taking possession of the whole of that country. If they could not stop the advance of Russia, what ought they to do? If they did anything, they must themselves advance into Afghanistan. Well, he had always been a man of action, and was not disinclined to advise the taking possession of territory where the people were not accustomed to freedom, and of which it was expedient to take possession. He had himself very recently taken possession, in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty, of territory such as he had described on the other extremity of India, and in justification of such a policy much was to be said. But the conditions

    1049
    which justified it did not exist in the case of the Afghans. They were a people who prized freedom above all things. They might be called turbulent, but they had a passion for freedom. They could not take possession of the country of that free and democratic people without an expenditure of blood and treasure which would be totally disproportionate to the object in view. They had once tried this, and had burnt their fingers. Unless, therefore, it was a case of extreme necessity, it would be madness to attempt to annex Afghanistan. That being so, what course was suggested to us to follow? It was this—to enter into diplomatic relations with the Afghans, with a view to buying them up. Well, there was an old proverb, that you cannot get the breeks off a Highlander; but he believed that that feat would be an easy one compared with the obtaining of a diplomatic advantage over the Afghans. "Where they sold they had always the best of the bargain. No one could, so to say, come over them by diplomacy. There was this difficulty, too—that Afghanistan was not a united kingdom. It was a country made up of a great number of tribes, many of which were absolutely independent each of the others, and the Ameer had no real authority or real stability upon which we could rely for the fulfilment of a treaty. The day after a treaty was made with one Ameer, there might be a revolution and another Ameer in power. In fact, the course suggested would lead to much difficulty and expose this country to great political dilemmas, and for this reason, among others, that they could not secure the safety of a British Resident in Afghanistan. Any unruly Afghan might any day cut the throat of the Resident and render it necessary that we should send an army into the country. The true policy to pursue was, he said emphatically, not to make a fuss, not to talk so much upon the subject of Russian aggression. Talking where one did not mean to act, or could not or would not act, was likely to lead to mischief. The continual making of a fuss about Russian advances in Central Asia exposed a raw in our political hide and led Russia to think that she had a "pull" over us. If there was any degree of alarm in India on the subject, and excitement in men's minds and in the bazaars or regiments, it was due, he
    1050
    believed, not to Indian intelligence, but solely to the fuss and rumpus made in the English papers, and the articles being copied into the Native journals. Well, if that were the real cause of it, he was convinced they ought to get rid of all that fuss and pursue a policy of "masterly inactivity." He maintained that our fathers were wrong in formerly advancing into Afghanistan. It might be that Russia could establish herself in real strength in Central Asia, and if she established herself there, it would be necessary that we should be vigilant. In the meantime, he felt there was so little immediate prospect of collision with Russia that, probably, the question might be left to their children, or even to their grandchildren. At the same time, he did not say that we were not under any circumstances to take notice of the advances of Russia. England was not the only Power which, under such circumstances, would find it necessary to check the advance of Russia. If Russia were to take possession of Asia, and to acquire such a position that she might turn her hordes, disciplined by Russian officers, against Europe, Powers other than England would be interested in checking her advance. But the danger was by no means imminent, and he therefore thought it would be well to trust for the present to the chapter of accidents, and leave Russia to difficulties which she must necessarily encounter in pursuing a policy such as that of which she was by many suspected.
    MR. BOURKE: Although this debate has been somewhat discursive, I think hon. Members will admit that it has been very interesting, and although the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has rather deprecated discussion on the subject, I think the House will agree with me that, at all events, one good result it has had has been the giving us the pleasure of listening to his speech—a speech which was characterized not only by great knowledge and experience of the country of which we are speaking, but also by the common-sense of his native land. Now, I do not deny for a moment the right of my hon. Friend (Mr. B. Cochrane) to bring forward this question—I should be the last person in the world to deny him the right. At the same time, I hope he will excuse me if I decline to follow him throughout all the

    1051
    subjects on which he has addressed us. I think, Sir, I shall best discharge my duty to the House if I first allude to the Motion on the Paper, and which asks for the production of documents. Now, all the Papers relating to the treaty have been already produced, and consequently it is not in the power of the Government to produce any more. On the whole subject of Central Asia, I may say, that communications and despatches have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia, but these communications are not ripe for publication; but when the time comes we shall be very happy to produce such of them as we may think proper. I regret that it is not in our power to produce them this evening, because I am quite sure the House and the country would approve of the course which Her Majesty's Government have taken in the matter, and I am quite sure also that they would be thoroughly convinced of the harmony that prevails between the two Governments. A great portion of the speech of my hon. Friend was an historical survey of the progress of Russia in the East. It is not my intention to go into that question, for this simple reason—that there is no subject which interests people throughout Europe more, and in regard to which we have every sort of information supplied to us by the newspapers; and although my hon. Friend has brought forward many interesting statements, it would be comparatively useless for me to make any comments on them. But he is altogether in error when he supposes, as he seems to do, that either this House or the Government have been indifferent on the subject. I can assure the House that the Government have taken a very considerable interest in it. But when my hon. Friend talks about the progress of Russia, and likens it to the progress of a tidal wave which has swept over the country, he has acquired a totally different impression of it from that which we entertain; because we know it has cost Russia a great deal of time, and a vast amount of money and blood, to obtain the position she now has in Central Asia; and so far from her progress being like a tidal wave, I do not know any country that has expended an equal amount of labour in conquering another as Russia has in conquering
    1052
    that part of Turkestan which she now occupies. Then my hon. Friend went on to speak of Khiva, and he drew attention to the communications that have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia. Now nobody who reads English can assert that the engagements which we understood Russia to have entered into in regard to Khiva have been kept. That is a subject which has not, and ought not, to be lost sight of; but it is one on which, it will be perfectly obvious, it would be very wrong of me to enter at present. He then went on to speak of the desirableness of keeping up communication with the East, and I do not think there can be any doubt about that. He speaks of the Suez Canal. Well, its destiny is in its own hands as a great commercial speculation, and if it is true, as all must agree it is, that, both from a commercial and a political point of view, it is of great advantage to us, it is no less true that we are of great advantage to the Suez Canal, for I believe that at least 70 per cent of the vessels that pass through it are English. I am sure every person must sympathize with the undertaker of the Canal, and wish him every success in his great enterprize; but, at the same time, I think we ought not to bind ourselves to enter into any international pledge which must bring embarrassments on the country, nor do I think it should be the policy of this country to sanction any arrangement that would infringe on the territorial rights of the Khédive. Then, in regard to railway communication, I am sure we should all have great gratification in seeing such a line established, as has been alluded to by my hon. Friend, because it would have a great effect in developing the resources of the Turkish Empire, and, at the same time, would be of use to us in our commercial enterprizes and in our communications with the East. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury) also addressed the House in a speech of great clearness and ability, and that speech was a most interesting dissertation upon the various topics to which it referred. He spoke of China and of Kashgar, and of our relations with Russia; but, while all these subjects are of the greatest interest, I do not think the House will wish me to enter upon them in detail,

    1053
    for I could only make some comments on them which, after all, would not be of very much value. With regard to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Campbell), he spoke in the first place, and almost all through his speech, in advocacy of a course of "masterly inactivity." That phrase is one which those acquainted with India have often heard; but, for myself, I would prefer that the circumstances of each particular case should determine the amount of activity which should characterize the foreign policy of England. But I would be sorry to commit myself to a general policy of "masterly inactivity," because I am not quite sure what it means, and, in some instances, "inactivity" of any kind, would, in my opinion, be undesirable. My hon. Friends have almost all asked what is to be done. Now, it has never been the policy of this country to declare beforehand what course it will adopt under hypothetical circumstances, or upon conditions which do not exist. Our policy is well known upon the subject before the House. We have no desire to advance our frontiers in the direction of Central Asia. We think that it is the interest of both Russia and England that a reasonable distance should intervene between our respective frontiers; and that there may be a danger in the future of the two nations drifting towards one another—a danger pointed out many years ago by Count Nesselrode; and we think that the policy of both countries ought to be to prevent that contingency. At one time it was thought that a formal recognition of a great neutral territory between the two Empires, which might limit the advance of each and be scrupulously respected by both, would be a desirable arrangement, and a correspondence took place upon the subject, the particulars of which have been laid before Parliament, but that correspondence did not lead to any agreement as to the limits of that neutral territory; and when it was proposed that Afghanistan should constitute the zone the Government of India could not entertain the proposition; and no agreement was ever come to upon the subject; and now, speaking of the present position of affairs, I would say that since the idea of a neutral territory was first advanced many territorial changes have taken place, which materially alter the condition of things. We think that
    1054
    any undertaking or agreement based upon the principle of a binding engagement as to a certain defined neutral territory would be one likely to lead to misunderstanding and difficulty; and that an agreement that one Empire should exercise what has been called political influence within a certain sphere, and that the other Empire should exercise similar influence within another sphere, would be an unwise arrangement, for two reasons. In the first place, it is very difficult to define what political influence means, and misunderstandings might arise as to whether either country was or was not fulfilling its engagements to the other. Secondly, in a country like Central Asia, where boundaries are ill-defined and little known, where nomad tribes exist, who have never been accustomed to regard boundaries very scrupulously, where government in the European sense is not to be found, where the inhabitants are turbulent, lawless, and fanatical, it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, for the Government of either Empire so to control events as to be responsible to the other for occurrences which took place beyond their own frontiers. Under these circumstances, while they approve of the principle which dictated the policy of a neutral zone—that is, that a reasonable distance should intervene between the two Empires—it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to enter into any formal arrangement or agreement upon the basis of a neutral territory within certain limits in the European sense of the term. They looked upon the status quo without apprehension. I have said we have no desire to advance our frontiers, and, so long as the present state of things remains substantially the same. Her Majesty's Government do not intend to countenance any such policy. We have given innumerable proofs to those States which abut on our Indian Empire that we desire them to be powerful, peaceable, and independent. We desire to show them that we are not an aggressive Power. We have long been united to them by friendly ties. We will not enter into any engagement which might prejudice either their interests or our own, or hamper our freedom of action with respect to them; and we hold ourselves at liberty to enter into further alliances with those States, according to

    1055
    those considerations, commercial, political, and strategical, which we may, from time to time, consider wise and prudent. It is not for me to speak of the foreign policy of the Government of India. I should be trenching upon the province of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for India, were I to do so; but I may say that the establishment of the most friendly relations with Afghanistan is no new policy. It was advocated by Lord Canning before Dost Mahomed died. It was carried out by Lord Lawrence. It was acted upon by Lord Lawrence's successor. It was secured at the Umballa Conference, and the fruits of that Conference are that Afghanistan is stronger now than it has ever been since the days of Dost Mahomed. The development of that policy is a work of time, and depends a great deal upon the amount of confidence we inspire by means of personal influence in the minds of the Native Chiefs and rulers; and when freedom of intercourse is more fully established between us and them, we may hope that old suspicions and old animosities may be subdued, and that our motives will be more appreciated by those wild and warlike tribes which inhabit Afghanistan. If that policy is carried out with firmness, conciliation, and perseverance, it is that most calculated to preserve the peace of Central Asia. This is a policy which can give no umbrage to any Power in the world. If the great Empire of Russia, with which we are on the most friendly terms, is anxious, as I am sure she is, to develop the resources of her domains in Turkestan, she will best attain that object by allowing a peaceful commerce to spring up between India and Turkestan, which, if left to its natural course, will enormously profit both Empires, and will cement that friendship between the two countries which is so important to maintain. In conclusion, I hope that nothing which has been said to-night will tend for a moment to disturb the friendly relations existing between the two Empires.
    MR. BUTLER-JOHNSTONEsaid, he believed that that part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which he said that a correspondence had passed between the Russian Government and Her Majesty's Government, which, in the opinion of the latter, was satisfactory;
    1056
    and that he hoped that measures, though he did not think it right to specify them, would be taken by which a good understanding between Afghanistan and ourselves might be promoted, would be received with satisfaction by the country. He differed from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir George Campbell) and in common with authorities equally as great as the hon. Baronet, among whom were Sir Justin Shiel, General John Jacob, and Sir Henry Rawlinson, he (Mr. Butler-Johnstone) held opinions diametrically opposed to that of the hon. Member as to the policy of "masterly inactivity" about which they had heard so much. The subject of the advance of Russia towards India was but a small part of the Central Asian question, for there were other objects which Russia might be supposed to have in view. He was somewhat disappointed with the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane), which was hardly adequate to the great subject which he undertook to bring before the House. He (Mr. Butler-Johnstone) thought that the Central Asian question had to Russia a meaning quite distinct from any question connected with Constantinople, or of menacing our Indian Empire. The idea of an attack upon India was not one that would be likely to enter the head of Russia; but even if Russia could cross the Himalayas, and thus add a whole continent to her dominions, she had not a sufficient staff of educated and qualified men to govern a country the administration of whose affairs put a great strain even upon a nation like our own. It might be an advantage to Russia to be able to menace England in the East in the event of European complications; but it was for us to look well to our resources, and to see that Russia did not put upon us a pressure to which we would not submit. Nobody who knew the history of Russia could suppose she had abandoned the hope of some day obtaining Constantinople; but that was not a thing likely to happen in our time. Though Turkey was in a bad condition, she had good elements which might be backed up with effect by English influence. Turkey was certainly at any time more exposed to danger from Russia through Asia Minor than through Europe, and the pacification of the

    1057
    Caucasus opened up a way to Russia in those parts. The objects of Russia in Central Asia were in a large measure commercial. The Khanates of the Oxus and the Jaxartes had entailed on her an expenditure three times greater than the revenue they yielded her. The Russians incurred that enormous outlay with a view to secure to themselves the whole of the trade of Central Asia. They would not abandon the Khanate of Khiva; they were extremely anxious to get to Bokhara, and they could not get to Bokhara without having Khiva. Why had Russia been so anxious to get to Bokhara? For the obvious reason that that was the centre and focus of all the caravan routes to the Empire of China. If Russia could bring China within the scope of her trade, the result would more than compensate any expenditure which might have been incurred to bring it about. By that means she would obtain something like a monopoly of the trade of Asia, and she would, moreover, take up a much more important position than she at present enjoyed in the trade of Europe. By every means possible Russia had been endeavouring to get into China. While we in the most brutal manner were sacking the Summer Palace—["Oh, oh!"]—well, all our relations with the Chinese Empire, from the Opium War down to the sacking of the Palace were marked by a truculency of policy unprecedented in our history—Russia was intently engaged in securing advantages by means of commercial treaties with the Chinese Empire. Were he a Russian he would contemplate with pride the growth of Russian dominion and trade in Asia, but the question he had now to consider was whether the interests of England were at stake. If English goods were allowed to compete freely with Russian goods, that extension of Russian dominion would be of great advantage to this country. But Russia absolutely prohibited our goods from going into the countries over which she exercised jurisdiction. In one instance there was a duty of 40 per cent on our goods, and a duty of only 2½ per cent on Russian goods. We had grown tea in India with eminent success, and yet Russia absolutely prohibited Indian tea from coming into her markets. He held that this country, by a proper diplomacy, might exercise a greater influence at
    1058
    Pekin than Russia, and he would be sorry to see "a policy of masterly inaction" carried out by England in China; and he sincerely hoped we should not come into collision with that country, as she was a very good customer of ours, and the effect of it would be to play into the hands of Russia, and to hand over a good deal of trade to Russia. The Russians were doing all they could in Japan as well as in China to show that they were the only true friends of that country, and that France and England were its enemies; and he was told that Russia had entered into an alliance offensive and defensive with Japan, so that the latter should close her ports against those countries with which Russia was at war. He would not at that late hour enter into the Indian aspect of the Central Asian Question, especially after the declaration of the Government on the subject, but would only express, in conclusion, his satisfaction at the statement which had been made by Her Majesty's Government, and to say he thought they might congratulate themselves upon the debate which had occurred upon the subject.
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE, in reply, said, he regretted that the hon. Member (Mr. Butler-Johnstone) had considered his speech entirely inadequate to the occasion. He knew that the hon. Member was so competent to make an adequate speech on the subject that he had implored him to bring it before the House; and it was only when he declined to do so that he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) in so inadequate a manner introduced it.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

    PUBLIC WORKS [CONSOLIDATED FUND] BILL.
    Resolution [July 5] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 243.]

  SOCIETY OF JESUS.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. WHALLEYrose to move that a Select Committee be appointed—
    "To inquire and report to the House as to the residence in this Country, in contravention of the Act of 10 Geo. 4, of any persons being members

    1059
    of the Order of Jesus, commonly called Jesuits, and as to the names, present residence, and ostensible occupation of such persons; also as to the amount and nature of any property vested in or at the disposal of such persons for the purpose of promoting the objects of such Society or Order; and, so far as may be practicable, to inquire and report as to the doctrine, discipline, canons, laws, or usages under which such Order is constituted, and by which it is directed and controlled."
    The hon. Gentleman said, he brought forward that Motion because on a late occasion the Prime Minister, in answer to a Question which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman, had stated that he was not aware of the circumstances to which he referred, and he thought it was right that some Members of the House should state what they were in order to justify the inquiry for which he asked. There was no doubt that in the Catholic Emancipation Act the residence of the Society of Jesus and similar societies was prohibited on the ground now well known all over Europe, that wherever the civil conflicted with the spiritual allegiance of their members the first was repudiated. ["No, no!"] Well, that was the prevalent belief, and it was fortified by the declaration of Cardinal Manning, whose mission and the mission of these societies was to subdue to the Church of Rome an imperial and imperious race—the people of this country. The Act of Parliament, passed in 1829, declared there should be no Jesuits or monasteries permitted in this country, yet in that year there were 447 priests, whereas now the number was 1,966——
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bridges (Ireland) * (198); Police Constables (Scotland) * (199).
Committee—Public Health (136–200).
Committee—Report—Glebe Lands, Corporate Bodies (Ireland)* (181).
Report—Ecclesiastical Pees Redistribution * (187–201); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) * (104); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, &c.) * (147).
Third Reading—Salmon Fishery Act Provisional Order (Taw and Torridge) * (156); Canada Copyright* (179), and passed.

NORWICH ELECTION.
Her Majesty's Answer to the Address of June 18 reported, as follows:—
"I have received the Joint Address of the two Houses of Parliament in reference to the Report made by the Judge selected to try a Petition in respect of the Election and Return for the City of Norwich.
"And I have given directions accordingly for the appointment of the gentlemen named in the Address to be Commissioners for the purpose of making the inquiry prayed for."

PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.—(No. 136.)
(The Lord President.)
PUBLIC HEALTH BILL.—(No. 136.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that in pursance of the Notice he had given, he rose to call attention to the Water Supply of the Metropolis. It might seem anomalous that he should, on the Motion for going into Committee on the Public Health Bill, call attention to this particular subject, seeing that the

  995
  Bill did not apply to the metropolis; but what he sought to direct their Lordships' attention to was the general principle on which Water Companies were allowed to charge for their water supply according to the annual valuation of property. Thus he thought that the ratepayers of the metropolis would have to pay an enormous amount of money in consequence of the action of the Metropolitan Water Companies in connection with the working of the statute under which the metropolis was re-valued from time to time. On each re-valuation, both the gross and the rateable value of property in this capital was largely increased. That, he ventured to think, would be found to be a result of the recent revaluation. The Water Companies made their charges on the "rateable value" of the premises; so that, with the increase of the value of property in the metropolis, those Companies could bring large additional sums into their coffers without extending their works or improving either the quantity or quality of the water. They could do this until their dividends reached 10 per cent. Since the Metropolis Valuation Act of 1871 came in force those Water Companies had raised their capital from £9,975,000 to £11,071,000, and they had further power to raise £792,000. Their plan for raising money was by the issue of additional shares, instead of by loans, which they could obtain at a moderate rate of interest. Their shares were readily taken up, because persons knew that when the time came—as come it would—when a central authority would have to purchase up the rights of those Companies, the purchase would have to be made at a very high rate on a very much increased revenue. It might be difficult to insert in this Bill a clause to protect the ratepayers against the Water Companies, but he suggested that the Government might well consider whether the operation of any new valuation of the metropolis ought not to be suspended for a year or two, in order that Parliament might have an opportunity of considering what ought to be done in respect of those Companies.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDhoped he would be excused if he declined to follow the noble Earl into a discussion of the Metropolitan Water Supply, seeing that the Bill did not, as the noble Earl had stated, apply to the metropolis. The
  996
  noble Earl was entirely out of Order, inasmuch as by a clause in the Bill the metropolis was expressly excluded from the operation of the measure, and consequently any reply he could make to the noble Earl's remarks would be entirely out of place.
  House in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 109, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 110 (Restriction on establishment of offensive trade in urban districts. P. H. s. 64).
  Amendment moved to insert after ("Tripe boiler, or")—
  (" Manufacturer, smelting or burning ores or minerals giving off sulphuric acid, sulphuretted hydrogen, or ammoniacal gases, or.")—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was unable to accept the Amendment as the matter was dealt with by another clause, and hoped that the noble Duke would not press it.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 33; Not-Contents 54: Majority 21.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 111 agreed to.
  Clause 112 (Duty of urban authority to complain to justice of nuisance arising from offensive trade).
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDmoved, in page 39, lines 31, 34, 35, for ("urban authority") read ("local authority").
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDopposed the Amendment on the ground that all local authorities would not be fit persons to have such very large powers; but the local authorities would be able to report nuisances to the Local Government Board, and then they would be dealt with.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 113 to 123, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 124 (Penalty on exposure of infected persons and things. San. 1866, ss. 25, 38).
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETmoved, to insert—
  "Any person who suffering from a contagious disorder wilfully communicates such disorder, and any person who while suffering, &c., &c,"
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, lie could not accept the proposal. The word "contagious" had been studiously left out of the Bill, and he hoped that the noble Duke would not cause it to be inserted.
  LORD HAMPTONsaid, that the subject was one of extreme importance, as it touched the health of the people to a large extent.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 125 to 167, inclusive, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYmoved, after Clause 167, to insert the following clause:—

  PUBLIC HALL, &c.
  (Urban authority may provide place for public meetings, &c.)
  "Where an urban authority are a local board or improvement commissioners they may, with the consent of the owners and ratepayers of their district expressed in manner provided by Schedule III. to this Act, provide and maintain for the purpose of holding public meetings and other like purposes, a suitable building or room, and may let the same to any person as and when they think fit, and may from time to time make regulations for the use and management of the same."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, the proposed clause had been rejected by the House of Commons on the ground that it would interfere with local taxation, and he did not think it would be seemly under these circumstances to re-insert it in the Bill.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  Amendments moved and negatived; Amendments made, the Report thereof to be received on Thursday the 15th instant; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 201.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, Eleven o'clock.