Sitting of 9 April 1877

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)—Resolutions [April 6] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — Resolution in Committee —Ordered— First Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * [125].
Ordered—First Reading — Local Government Provisional Orders (Horbury, &c.) * [126]; Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) * [127].
Committee—Mutiny—R.P.
Committee—Report—Prisons (Scotland) * [4–124].
Considered as amended—High Court of Justice (Costs) * [99].
Third Reading—Judicial Proceedings (Rating) * [77], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Post Office has not established direct communication between Manchester and the London Stock Exchange, Liverpool and the London Stock Exchange, and Glasgow and the London Stock Exchange; and, why a like facility is not afforded between the Dublin and London Stock Exchanges?
  MR. W. H. SMITH (for Lord JOHN MANNERS): The Post Office did not establish direct communication between the London Stock Exchange and the Manchester and Glasgow Stock Exchanges; it simply continued the privilege of an arrangement which had been afforded by the late telegraph companies, and the continuance of which arrangement is justified by the large amount of business transacted. The number of messages passing between the London and Dublin and Stock Exchanges is insufficient to warrant the Department in giving up a wire exclusively for their transmission.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT—SANITARY CONDITION OF PORTSMOUTH.

  QUESTION.
  MR MACDONALDasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the report of Dr. Thorne Thorne, which appeared on the 17th ultimo in "The Hampshire Telegraph" and "Sussex Chronicle" in respect to the sanitary condition of Portsmouth, and more especially to the two following cases, viz.:—
  "In the overcrowded house of a tailor and dealer in second-hand clothing, a child was

  765
  attacked with scarlet fever. Isolation was impossible, and a second child was attacked, one case terminating fatally. At the house of another tailor, where several cases occurred, I ascertained that at the date of the outbreak the mother divided her time between nursing her sick children and the manufacture of articles of clothing;"
  and, whether, considering the representations that have already been made to the Government in respect to cases of this kind, it will order an inquiry to be made into the danger that exists for the spread of contagious diseases by allowing tailors to manufacture clothing in their private dwellings?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, his attention had been called to the Report of Dr. Thorne, which was a very important and interesting one, as to the sanitary condition of Portsmouth. The gist of that report was, not that there had been any actual spread of scarlet fever in Portsmouth in consequence of the practice of tailors making clothes in their own homes, but was to the effect that the authorities ought to provide further accommodation, with a view to the isolation of the disease in its early stages. The Report, which was dated January last, had been referred by him to the authorities of Portsmouth, and they had replied that they were taking steps to provide proper hospital accommodation for such isolation. The two cases of the tailors to which the hon. Member had referred were specially alluded to by Dr. Thorne, who might have gone further and given other cases. He had been in communication with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the subject, and he was not aware that at this moment there was anything which would show the necessity for taking further steps with respect to strengthening the provisions of the Public Health Act in connection with the matter.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—THE TOWN COMMISSIONERS OF WICKLOW.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'BYRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Town Commissioners of Wicklow have been recently compelled to pay to Mr. Finlay, the Government auditor, seventeen pounds ten shillings and sixpence for taxed costs, and five pounds three
  766
  shillings and fourpence, the auditor's charges for lost time, in relation to proceedings before the magistrates of Wicklow for the recovery of a surcharge of three pounds, in which the magistrates refused to order any costs; and, whether he, as a Member of the Local Government Board, has any control over such charges?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I am informed, Sir, that this surcharge of £3 was part of a disallowance of a considerably larger sum made by the Government auditor on the Town Commissioners of Wicklow for the year 1875. It had been illegally paid by the Commissioners to the Chairman for presiding at the election of Town Commissioners. He refused to refund it, but paid it without notice into the bank while the case was being heard by the magistrates. The magistrates in these circumstances did not consider themselves justified in making an order for costs, being probably unacquainted with the provisions of the law which enact that an auditor in such circumstances—
  "shall be paid by the Governing Body all such costs and expenses, including a reasonable compensation for his loss of time, incurred by him in such proceedings, as are not recovered by him from"
  the person against whom the surcharge is made. I think it is clear that the amount of costs incurred in such a case cannot depend on the sum for which the surcharge is made, and it is, I think, also clear that a person in the position of a public auditor ought not to be charged with costs incurred in the execution of his duty. I do not consider that there is any necessity for my interference as a Member of the Local Government Board.

  THE CUSTOMS (LONDON)—THE PLAYFAIR SCHEME.—QUESTION.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is proposed to apply the scheme of the Right honourable Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University, commonly called "the Playfair Scheme," to the Customs London Establisment; or, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government have any other scheme in contemplation?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that the views of

  767
  the Government on the immediate application of "the Playfair scheme" had been set forth in an Order in Council of the 12th of February, 1876. The outdoor establishment of the Customs had been already dealt with, and the other branches of that Department would be revised, in common with other branches of the Civil Service, according to the lines laid down in the right hon. Gentleman's Report and the Order in Council. The detailed application of the Report could not be promised unconditionally, as it might be subject to considerations of expenses and the varying circumstances of particular Offices.

  EGYPT—SALE OF SLAVES.—QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government has yet received information from Egypt as to the alleged sale of three hundred women at Cairo a few days after the Egyptian Government had sent a ship of war down the Red Sea for the suppression of the Slave Trade; whether the statement of Captain W. R. Kennedy, R.N., to that effect is confirmed; and, whether that sale was in any way at the instance of the Egyptian Government; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government has remonstrated with the Khedive on such inconsistency?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government had received information in reference to the alleged sale of 300 women at Cairo from the Consul general at Cairo. The Consul general stated that he had made a most careful and minute inquiry into the statement, and he had not been able to find anything at all to substantiate the statement of Mr. Kennedy, which appeared in the newspapers last February. The Consul also stated that it would be, in his judgment, impossible that a public sale of slaves on so large a scale could have occurred without becoming generally known; and he added that it was the habit of the authorities at Cairo to capture the different batches of slaves that were attempted to be brought into Cairo, and to release them.

  BRITISH MEDICAL DEPARTMENT CODE (INDIA).—QUESTION.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the Secretary of State for War, When para-
  768
  graph 25 of the British Medical Department Code (India), viz.—
  "In order to be qualified for holding an administration appointment in this country" (India) "it is required that an executive medical officer should have served as a surgeon for three years with a European regiment in India,"
  was made general in its application, and in what manner this conversion of a rule believed to be local into a general rule, was made known to the officers affected by it in the general medical service of this country; whether there are any medical administration officers now holding appointments who have not complied with the condition of paragraph 25; and whether this local rule now made general has been published in England with the authority of the Secretary of State for War; and, if so, whether that publication legally sets aside the condition of the Royal Warrant 1876, paragraph 16?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, it was not made general until the issue of the Warrant of 1876, but it must have been perfectly well known throughout the Department, because in 1867 it was necessary to pass over 60 or 70 officers to obtain the requisite number for India who had the qualifying service. With regard to the second part of the Question, there are medical administrative officers now holding appointments who have not complied with the condition of Paragraph 25, for the necessities of India having been supplied, some of the officers who were then passed over, as above stated, were promoted to administrative rank at home and in the Colonies. The effect of this was really unfair, as it gave some men long tropical service, and others an undue amount of home service, and so interfered with the roster; and, therefore, last year I considered it advisable, with the concurrence of His Royal Highness, to establish one system for promotion—namely, by selection, one of the elements of which was the necessity of having three years' Indian service. This does not in the least set aside the conditions of Paragraph 16 of the Royal Warrant of 1876, which lays down ability and merit as qualifications for promotion, as opposed to seniority, but not as excluding other grounds for non-selection—such as ill-health, inability to perform tropical service, &c,

  JAMAICA.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a Memorial was received at the Colonial Office during the past year from the inhabitants of Jamaica, complaining of certain grievances under the new form of government instituted in 1865, and its defective administration, especially of the great increase of taxation and public expenditure, of public works undertaken beyond the means and requirements of the Colony, and of mismanagement in certain public departments; whether any instructions have been given, or anything done, to remedy the evils complained of; and, whether, now that a new Governor is about to proceed to Jamaica, Her Majesty's Government will amend the new form of government by introducing a certain proportion of members elected by the different districts, or by increasing the number of non-official members to be taken as far as possible from the different districts of the island, so as to afford an independent representation of the public opinion of the country?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, a Memorial has been received (to the effect mentioned in the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question), purporting to emanate from the inhabitants of the island of Jamaica, though bearing the signatures of only a very limited proportion of the population. The Memorial has been retained in order that the Secretary of State may confer with the new Governor, Sir Anthony Musgrave, who has recently arrived in England, upon the questions of alleged defective administration which are raised by the memorialists, and upon other matters of importance which have been brought to Lord Carnarvon's notice by gentlemen interested in the Colony. Her Majesty's Government have no intention at present of effecting any change in the Constitution of the Colony, and information to that effect has already been conveyed to the memorialists.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS-LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government, having had in their hands for some weeks the evidence taken before
  770
  the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, is now prepared to introduce, during the present Session, any measure for the better prevention of accidents on Railways?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, before deciding what legislation should be adopted in consequence of the Report of the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, the Government have thought it desirable to confer with the railway companies as to what steps they would voluntarily take with regard to some of the principal recommendations contained in that Report. Until, therefore, the Government have learnt what course the companies will take, they are not in a position to state what legislation may be requisite. They hope, however, that good will result from the communications which are going on, and that the companies will agree together to carry out some of the suggestions of the Commission to secure greater safety to the public.

THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWARD JENKINSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give any information as to the progress of the Mission to the South African Republic; and, whether there is any truth in the statement that Her Majesty's Commissioner, Sir Theophilus Shepstone, has warned the Government at Pretoria that, failing an arrangement for Confederation,it would be necessary to annex the territory of the Republic to Her Majesty's South African Colonies?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, there is no official information which can at this moment be given to the House, but from private communications received at the Colonial Office there is reason to believe that Sir Theophilus Shepstone has pointed out to the Government of the Transvaal the hopeless condition of anarchy into which the Rupublic has fallen and the imminent risks of further outbreaks on the part of the Native tribes, involving the greatest danger not only to the whole White population of the Transvaal, but to the peace of Her Majesty's Possessions in South Africa—a danger which would become very imminent if he were to return, leaving the Government of the Republic in no safer

  771
  and stronger position than at present. Her Majesty's Governmant have no desere to interfere in the internal administration of the Transvaal, if the authorities are able to defend themselves and to maintain order; but failing this, Sir Theophilus Shepstone may obviously be compelled, for the protection of the lives of British subjects, both in the Republic and the neighbouring Colonies, to call in the aid of Her Majesty's troops now stationed for the purposes of public security on the frontier of Natal.

SUEZ CANAL CERTIFICATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HANBURY-TRACYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the promise, which appears from Colonel Stokes' letter to Lord Derby of 23rd February 1876, and the protocol of 22nd (Parliamentary Papers, Egypt, No. 9, 1876) to have been made by M. de Lesseps, namely, that the practice of re-measuring ships having Suez Canal Certificates issued by the Board of Trade should at once be discontinued, has been carried into effect; and, if not, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to obtain the performance of this undertaking?
  MR. BOURKE: Yes, Sir. We believe that the promise has been carried into effect; and we are informed, upon the authority of M. de Lesseps himself, that the most stringent orders have been given to the officers of the Company not to measure vessels bearing the special certificate.

  ITALY—EXTRADITION OF ITALIAN CHILDREN.—QUESTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any correspondence has taken place between the Foreign Office and the Italian Government respecting the introduction into this country of Italian children taken away from Italy in violation of the laws of that Kingdom; and, if so, whether such Correspondence can be laid upon the Table; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared by diplomatic or, if necessary, legislative action to second the efforts of the Italian Government to put an end to this practice?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have made inquiry at the Foreign Office, but do not find that there is any very recent correspondence on this subject. In March, April, or May, 1874, the Italian Minister did call Lord Derby's attention to the subject, and expressed a wish that this Government would avail itself of some means of applying the extradition principle to the case of children imported into this country under the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. Lord Derby referred the matter to the Home Office, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State communicated with the Foreign Office on the subject, pointing out that there is no power of dealing with the case under any Extradition Acts; but suggesting that the Italian Government might prevent the egress of those children by refusing to grant passports, and that this Government would do all that could be done to assist them, by preventing the ill-usage of the children by those who had charge of them. I do not find that there has been any further correspondence on the subject; but there will be no objection to present what correspondence there is.

ARMY—THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS— ALLOWANCES TO TROOPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to make any special allowances to the Offices and Troops serving in the Straits Settlements during the late outbreak?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, it has been arranged that they shall have the same advantages as were enjoyed by the European troops sent to Abyssinia, and application has been made to the India Office to ascertain what those advantages were in order that they may be given to them.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — MR. WILLIAM ANCKETELL.—QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has as yet made the promised inquiry into the circumstances affecting the fitness of Mr. William Ancketell to be retained on the commission of the peace for the county

  773
  Monaghan, made public in the Belfast newspapers; and, if he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Lord Chancellor's Report?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I submitted such information, Sir, on this subject as was in my possession to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who has, I believe, also received a statement from Mr. Ancketell himself. The Lord Chancellor has informed me that he did not consider himself justified in acting without further inquiry, as there is no complete authoritative report or other document to which, as finding the facts, reference could be made. He therefore recommended that an inquiry should be held into the subject by a Queen's Counsel, and a warrant is now being issued for that purpose.

NAVY—CHIEF ENGINEERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in the proposed scheme for the promotion and retirement of Naval engineers, it is intended that the provision by which all confirmed time from twenty years of age is to be counted shall apply to all chief engineers, or only to those chief engineers who have completed eleven years' service in that rank?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON: Sir, I regret that indisposition prevents my right hon. Friend from being present to answer the Question of my hon. and learned Friend. I will, however, do so for him, and beg to say that this provision will only apply to those chief engineers who complete 11 years' service in that rank. The chief engineers who have completed the 11 years' service will, under the new regulations, be allowed to reckon from three to five years more time than formerly—that is, the time they served as second-class assistant engineers.

  COLLECTOR GENERAL OF RATES, DUBLIN.-QUESTION.
  SIR ARTHUR GUINNESSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is his intention during this Session to introduce any Bill dealing with the legal powers of the Collector General of Rates for the City of Dublin; and, if so, whether he will previously institute an offi-
  774
  cial inquiry into the present working of the Collector General's office?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Sir, a Bill extending the legal powers of the Collector General of Rates for the City of Dublin in certain points has been recommended to me by the Town Council, the two Boards of Guardians of the North and South Dublin Unions, and the Collector General himself. It is very possible that some such legislation as has been recommended is advisable; but from the evidence taken by the Select Committee on Local Government and Taxation of Towns in Ireland last Session, I am inclined to think that some improvement might also also be made in the direction suggested by my hon. Friend, and I will consider whether such an inquiry should be instituted.

  THE EMBASSY AT BERLIN—MILITARY ATTACHE.—QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw our Military Attaché to the Embassy at Berlin; and, if so, whether he can state the circumstances which have induced the Government to adopt that course?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, in reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to inform him that we have not withdrawn our Military Attaché from the Embassy at Berlin. General Walker has resigned the office he has held with so much distinction, but the Government have not come to any decision not to fill it up.

  TURKEY—BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA—ALLEGED OUTRAGES.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. EDWARD JENKINS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has yet been received from Her Majesty's Consul with regard to the two outrages detailed by the correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" of the 26th March—one of which outrages was stated to have occurred at Otchievo, in Bosnia, and the other at Glomosh, in the Herzegovina; and, whether the Government has received any further information of the state of the rural districts of Bosnia and the Herzegovina?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, I am extremely anxious to give the House all the information that we have upon this subject, and it may be in the recollection of hon. Members that the day before the House adjourned for the holidays I mentioned that I had sent a telegram, as proposed on the 13th March, to Consul Holmes, asking him whether any outrages, such as had been reported in The Manchester Guardian, had come under his notice; and on the 14th I stated we received an answer from Mr. Holmes that he had not been able to hear anything of those outrages. Since the House adjourned we received two considerably long despatches from Mr. Holmes upon this subject; and I hope that these despatches will be amongst the Papers which will be laid before the House in a very few days; but if hon. Members will permit me, I will read one or two extracts which will give Mr. Holmes's opinion generally upon the subject. Mr. Holmes says on March 14—
  "With reference to your telegram of 13th March, to which I have just briefly replied, regarding the statement that murders and outrages are on the increase in the north of Bosnia, I can only say that I have heard nothing to confirm this, nor, so far as I can learn by inquiry to-day, has any one else. It is well known that bands of insurgents, with Despotovich at their head, have passed the winter unmolested at Grahovo and Bihké, and that there are roving bands along the frontier; also that the desultory fighting between these hands and the Turks, which has been going on for many months, has long since had the effect of driving away most of the inhabitants, and no doubt murders and other outrages occur on both sides. I have lately been informed on good authority (not Turkish) that 12 Mussulman cattle dealers of Prujavor and Durbent, returning from Banialuka with the proceeds of their sales, were attacked at Zlatina by a band of insurgents and 11 of them killed. Probably this will lead to acts of retaliation, and I fully expect, now that peace has been made with Servia, and as the spring advances, all the unemployed and needy Slav patriots, aided and encouraged by Slav committees, will find their way into Bosnia, and cause a renewal of the brigandage on a large scale, which—ruinous to and deplored by both native Turks and Christians —it has pleased Slav sympathisers to call "insurrection." It is no wonder, then, that with these prospects those Christians who still remain should be anxious to quit the country, and I think that the unavoidable dilemma in which they are placed now, between their enraged Mussulman neighbours and their filibustering friends from without, has much more effect in determining their action than alleged atrocities on the part of the Turks, which it has been the fashion to take for granted."
  That is a portion of one dospatch, and
  776
  there is another despatch dated March 16, two days later, in which Mr. Holmes says—
  "I have the honour to call your Lordship's particular attention to the enclosed copy of a letter from the Austrian Correspondent of The Times, which appeared in that paper of March 6. It gives an admirable description of the state of affairs in the North-west of Bosnia, and agrees with all my own information. In contrast with this statement I will quote and criticize a few extracts from a letter of an Occasional Correspondent of The Manchester Guardian, who writes from Knin, on the Dalmatian frontier, to show how incorrectly what passes in Bosnia, is represented by the Slavophiles, who, from their vicinity and facility for correspondence, ought to be better informed, if they desired to do so."
  I need not quote all the extract from The Manchester Guardian which is sent in the despatch, as it is already before the public. After reciting its statement, Mr. Holmes calls attention to this particular passage in the Correspondent's letter—
  "Even in Serajevo, the capital of the Province, and where, if anywhere, the Osmanli ought to have some control over the native fanatics, the situation is deplorable. I have the authority of a European resident for saying that the whole Mussulman population has been armed to the teeth, that the Christian inhabitants of the city are daily insulted, and that gangs of fanatics patrol the streets at night, defying the authorities.' All this is utterly false, and the European Resident,' in giving this information to the writer to The Manchester Guardian, must have wilfully deceived him simply saying what, as a Slavophile, he thought it would be most agreeable to him to hear. It is true that the Mussulmans are armed, but scarcely anyone is to be found wearing arms in a town in which it is strictly forbidden. The Christians are not daily insulted. A few cases may naturally occur, but not to be spoken of as the writer evidently intends, as an intolerable persecution; and gangs of fanatics do not parade the streets at night, firing off pistols and defying the authorities, since I have returned here, and Mr. Freeman assures me that while I was absent nothing of the kind has ever occurred. The streets at night are undisturbed, and Serajevo is, and has been, throughout these events, perfectly quiet and orderly. The writer gives many other cases of murders by these ruffians.'"
  Mr. Holmes adds—
  "These cases may or may not be true, though, like everything else said to take place in this land of lies, they would, I imagine, be very difficult to substantiate. Nothing whatever, I may remark, is ever said or written about the murders and outrages committed by the Christian party, which, according to opportunity, have been, I believe, as hideous as those perpetrated by the Mussulman, but which, as the Turks for the most part have thought it more dignified to revenge than to complain, have had no chroniclers. I am quite aware that I am

  777
  represented as a 'passionate Turcophile;' but I trust that your Lordship and my superiors in general will give me credit for speaking the truth to the best of my knowledge and ability; and that being the case, I can afford to pass over the disadvantage under which I labour, in common with the few who have any knowledge of affairs in Bosnia, in having to contend against the great majority of uninformed and prejudiced speakers and writers on the state of affairs in these countries."
  We received a despatch this morning from Mr. Holmes, dated March 29, confirming the Reports of the 14th and 16th, in which he states that he has continued his inquiries both from the authorities and well-informed private individuals, Turks as well as Christians, and has always been assured that there is no truth whatever in the assertion that there is an increase in murders or outrages, and he is of that opinion himself.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: May I ask the hon. Member, Whether the Government has or has not telegraphed to Consul Holmes to ask him whether he can obtain any information with regard to the two particular outrages mentioned in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee?
  MR. BOURKE: I am not quite certain whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when some days ago I answered the Question put to me on this subject. I stated on that occasion that general instructions had been sent to all our Consuls on the subject of these alleged outrages. They were told, in the strongest and most peremptory manner, to report all outrages or atrocities which occurred in their districts. The right hon. Gentleman will see that it would cause an unnecessary multiplication of telegrams to ask for a report in each particular case, and that it is a much more convenient and satisfactory way of dealing with such matters than sending telegrams whenever Questions are asked in this House. By this means we should be supplied immediately with all the information of occurrences of the kind which came to the knowledge of our Consuls. The multiplication of telegrams on this subject has been very great. If the House will look at the Estimates it will be seen that a very large sum of money has been already spent in telegraphing; and I think we should not be justified in multiplying telegraphs unless we obtained some substantial evidence. We
  778
  are anxious to give the House all the information we can on this subject; and I have no doubt that if these particular atrocities to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes have taken place we shall hear about them from Consul Holmes.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: What I wish to ask is this—Whether the Government have taken any pains to inform Consul Holmes that intelligence of these atrocities had been received in England, and whether he was therefore asked to inquire if the accounts were true? The hon. Gentleman will see that there is a very great difference between a general request to send information with regard to atrocities Consul Holmes may hear of, and a special request to inquire about a particular atrocity.
  MR. BOURKE: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I can only state that we have not sent a special request for information in regard to these particular outrages, because it was not necessary to do so. It would be absurd to do such a a thing after we have sent the orders we have done. We have regularly sent to the Consuls notices of these Questions in the House of Commons, and there is no instance during the whole of these occurrences where, when Questions were asked, our Consuls have not taken notice of them and sent us all the information they could obtain. I have no doubt when Consul Holmes sees that this question has been asked, he will inquire into the matter immediately in order to send information respecting it.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE PROTOCOL. — NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish, Sir, to give Notice that on Friday next I will, on going into Committee of Supply, move an Address for further Papers on the affairs of Turkey, and particularly for the Draft Protocol presented to Lord Derby by the Russian Ambassador on 11th of March; and also for any Correspondence with reference to the Russian Circular of the 19th of January and the Protocol of the 11th of March.

  THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONFEDERATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. COURTNEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies,

  779
  When they might hope to receive the promised Papers respecting the South African Confederation, so that the House might be able to form an intelligent opinion of what was going on?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, some Papers on the subject will shortly be ready for presentation; but I cannot say when it may be advisable to present them, on account of the present position of affairs, which may perhaps render it necessary that the Papers should be in a more complete shape before they are laid on the Table.

  PRISONS BILL—PRISON LABOUR CLAUSE.—EXPLANATION.
  MR. MORLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Deartment, If, before he brings up the Report of the Prisons Bill, he will state the terms in which he proposes to refer to prison labour?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, what he had stated in Committee on the Prisons Bill was, that he was disposed to preface the clause on this subject by a Preamble, stating that the intention of the Legislature was that prison labour should not press heavily upon any trade or industry if it could be avoided. That Preamble would appear on the Paper among the Notices of Amendments to be proposed on the Report.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,046,100, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, to the 31st day of March 1878, viz:—

  CIVIL SERVICES
  CLASS I

  Great Britain:—

  £

  (18.) Metroploitan Police Courts Abroad:—

  1,900

  (23.) Embassy Houses and Consular Buildings

  8,000

  CLASS II.

  England:-

  £

  (1.) House of Lords Offices,

  7,500

  (2.) House of Commons, Offices

  8,500

  (3.) Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel

  10,000

  (4.) Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  (5.) Foreign Office

  12,500

  (6.) Colonial Office

  6,100

  (7.) Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  5,800

  (8.) Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  30,000

  (9.) Privy Seal Office

  500

  (10.) Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

  6,000

  (11.) Civil Service Commission

  4,500

  (12.) Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission

  3,100

  (13.) Inclosure and Drainage Acts Expenses

  1,500

  (14.) Exchequer and Audit Department

  8,500

  (15.) Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,000

  (16.) Local Government Board (including Pauper Lunatics)

  150,000

  (17.) Lunacy Commission

  2,600

  (18.) Mint

  8,500

  (19.) National Debt Office

  2,800

  (20.) Patent Office

  6,500

  (21.) Paymaster General's Office

  6,000

  (22.) Public Record Office

  3,800

  (23.) Public Works Loan Commission

  1,700

  (24.) Register Office, General

  8,000

  (25.) Stationery Office and Printing

  80,000

  (26.) Woods, Forests, &c., Office of

  4,500

  (27.) Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  6,500

  (28.) Secret Service

  4,000

  Scotland:—

  (29.) Exchequer and other Offices

  1,100

  (30.) Fishery Board

  2,200

  (31.) Lunacy Commission

  1,000

  (32.) Register Office, General

  1,200

  (33.) Board of Supervision (including Pauper Lunatics)

  20,000

  Ireland:—

  (34.) Lord Lieutenant's Household

  1,200

  (35.) Chief Secretary's Office

  4,500

  (36.) Boundary Survey

  100

  (37.) Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  400

  (38.) Local Government Board

  22,000

  (39.) Public Record Office

  1,100

  (40.) Public Works Office

  5,000

  (41.) Register Office, General

  3,000

  (42.) General Survey and Valuation

  3,600

  (43.) Pauper Lunatics

  20,000

  CLASS III.

  England:—

  (1.) Law Charges

  10,500

  (2.) Criminal Prosecutions

  30,000

  (3.) Chancery Division, High Court of Justice

  30,000

  (4.) Queen's Bench, &c. Divisions, High Court of Justice

  10,500

  (5.) Probate and Divorce Registries, High Court of Justice

  16,000

  (6.) Admiralty Registry, High Court of Justice

  2,300

  £

  (6A.) Wreck Commissioner's Office

  2,100

  (7.) Bankruptcy Court, London

  8,500

  (8.) County Courts

  75,000

  (9.) Land Registry Office

  1,000

  (10.) Police Courts, London and Sheerness

  2,500

  (11.) Metropolitan Police

  110,000

  (12.) Police, Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain

  1,000

  (13.) Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies

  75,000

  (14.) County Prisons, Great Britain

  17,000

  (15.) Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  60,000

  (16.)Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  5,000

  Scotland:—

  (18.) Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings

  12,000

  (19.) Courts of Law and Justice

  11,000

  (20.) Register House Departments

  5,500

  (21.) Prisons and Judicial Statistics

  3,500

  Ireland:—

  (22.) Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  14,500

  (23.) Court of Chancery

  7,000

  (24.) Common Law Courts

  5,000

  (25.) Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency

  2,000

  (26.) Lanced Estates Court

  2,000

  (27.) Probate Court

  2,000

  (28.) Admiralty Court Registry

  300

  (29.) Registry of Deeds

  3,500

  (30.) Registry of Judgments

  500

  (31.) Dublin Metropolitan Police

  35,000

  (32.) Constabulary

  275,000

  (33.) Government Prisons, &c.

  7,000

  (34.) County Prisons and Reformatories

  25,000

  (35.) Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  1,200

  (36.) Miscellaneous Legal Charges

  12,000

  CLASS IV.

  England:—

  (1.) Public Education

  500,000

  (2.) Science and Art Department

  50,000

  (3.) British Museum

  18,500

  (4.) National Gallery

  1,200

  (5.) National Portrait Gallery

  400

  (6.) Learned Societies

  2,100

  (7.) University of London

  1,800

  (8.) Deep Sea Exploring Expedition

  700

  (9.) Paris International Exhibition

  2,100

  Scotland:—

  (10.) Public Education

  125,000

  (11.) Board of Education

  500

  (12.) Universities, &c.

  3,100

  (13.) National Gallery

  400

  Ireland:—

  (14.) Public Education

  165,000

  (15.) Commissioners of Education (Endowed Schools)

  200

  (16.) National Gallery

  400

  (17.) Queen's University

  800

  (18.) Queen's Colleges

  2,100

  CLASS V

  (1.) Diplomatic Services

  51,000

  (2.) Consular Services

  62,000

  £

  (3.) Colonies, Grants in Aid

  12,000

  (4.) Orange River Territory and St. Helena

  500

  (5.) Suppression of the Slave Trade

  1,300

  (6.) Tonnage Bounties,&c.

  3,000

  (7.) Emigration

  500

  (8.) Suez Canal (British Directors)

  300

  CLASS VI.

  (1.) Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  115,000

  (2.) Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions &c

  8,500

  (3.) Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad

  5,000

  (4.) Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

  4,600

  (5.) Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  1,100

  (6.) Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland

  1,100

  (7.) Commutation of Annuities

  1,200

  CLASS VII.

  (1.) Temporary Commissions

  5,100

  (2.) Miscellaneous Expenses

  1,500

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  (1.) Customs

  165,000

  (2.) Inland Revenue

  300,000

  (3.) Post Office

  550,000

  (4.) Post Office Packet Service

  192,000

  (5.) Post Office Telegraphs

  309,000

  £4,046,100"

  MR. RYLANDSobjected to so considerable a Vote on Account as interfering with the due discussion of the several items, and moved to reduce it by one-third—namely, £1,348,700. His object was to bring the Vote down to what had been usual at that period of the Session.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,697,400, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, to the 31st day of March 1878."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould appeal to the Committee whether the Government had not done all in their power to bring forward Supply as early as possible. Owing, however, to the pressure of Business it had not been in their power to make the same progress with Supply as they had done last year. It appeared to be the wish of hon. Members opposite that the Secretary to the Treasury should this year make a Statement on moving the Miscellaneous Votes, and this Statement had necessarily taken some time, which, if otherwise employed, might have en-

  783
  abled the Government to get a number of Votes. The hen. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would see on examining the different items that the Government only asked for two months' Supply on account, and that request was neither unusual, unnecessary, nor unreasonable. The Government did not desire to withdraw the Votes from discussion so as to evade criticism, and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment.
  MR. GOLDSMIDobjected to the charge of £500 for the Lord Privy Seal. The Vote had been supported against former attacks by the suggestion that the Lord Privy Seal was the odd man in the Cabinet, ready to take up any work that might arise which did not belong to other Departments. That had been disputed; and now the Prime Minister by accepting the office, had proved the incorrectness of the allegations. He should certainly propose to reduce the Vote by the amount charged by the Lord Privy Seal.
  MR. DILLWYNcomplained that the amount for these Votes on account was increased every year, and it was therefore time to put a stop to the system. These Votes on account prevented the House from having any control over the Expenditure, and he should therefore support the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He thought that by giving the Government as small a sum as was possible the House would exercise a greater control over them.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsuggested to the Government the advisability of combining the two offices in future, and paying the full emoluments of both. For a rich country like Great Britain the Prime Minister was underpaid rather than overpaid, and he thought that the salary attached to the Privy Seal would be a willing addition to that of the Premier.
  MR. PARNELLreferred to the Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecution (Ireland), for which was required on Account £14,500, and the Estimate for 1877-78 was £85,428. This sum exceeded the past year's Estimate by £5,000, and he asked if the whole of the amount was required for this year.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, to the best of his belief, all the charges mentioned in the Vote were for the current year.
  MR. WHITWELLadmitted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury had used due diligence in pressing forward Supply, but he objected to so large a Vote on Account.
  MR. MONKsuggested that the Vote for £500 on account of Lord Privy Seal should be withdrawn.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that it was not competent to omit any item after a proposal had been made to reduce the whole Vote, unless the Amendment were by consent withdrawn.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, what was proposed was, that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would withdraw his Motion, the Government would propose to ask leave to withdraw the item of £500.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That the Item of £500, Privy Seal Office, be omitted from the proposed Vote,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
  —put, and agreed to.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,045,600, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, to the 31st day of March 1878."
  [Then the Votes set forth as before, in order, excepting Vote 9, Class II., Privy Seal Office, £500.]
  MR. RYLANDSproposed to reduce the amount by the sum of £530,100. He had very reasonable grounds for asking the Government to accept that proposal, for the amount they would receive would be equal to any Vote on Account which had been made during the last five years, and he was not aware of any exceptional circumstances which could induce the Government to ask for a Vote so much in excess of past Votes. During the past few years the Votes on Account for Civil Service had varied from £1,037,000 to £2,039,000 at this period of the year. If the large sum asked for were granted, the only effect would be to prevent opportunities for considering many of the items of expenditure being afforded hereafter. The reduc-

  785
  tion which was proposed would not be such as to occasion any difficulty in meeting the exigencies of the Public Service.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,515,500, granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, to the 31st day of March 1878."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley would amount to little more than a protest. He did not know of any sufficient reason why the particular reduction proposed should be made.
  MR. CHILDERScontended that it was not so much a protest against the Vote under discussion which actuated the conduct of the hon. Member for Burnley, as an emphatic protest against the large increase that had of late taken place in the amount of these Votes on Account. He could not understand on what possible ground it was necessary to have more than three months' pay in hand for the Irish and Metropolitan Police. They were paid at very short intervals, and the Vote on Account was now asked for for the first time. The Government asked for £110,000 out of £431,000 for the Metropolitan Police, and for £275,000 out of £1,086,000 for the Irish Constabulary.
  MR. W. H. SMITHstated that the amount asked for was the least which was necessary. It was unavoidable to ask for some of the Votes on Account. As for the Irish Constabulary they were paid quarterly, and their pay was now due.
  MR. HERMONobjected to an item connected with the Trade Marks Registration Bill—the sum for the carrying out of the provisions of which he thought would be thrown away, inasmuch as the Act in question was mischievous and unworkable, had inflicted considerable injuries upon manufacturers in the North, and would before long have to be amended.
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, it would be competent for the hon. Member to move the omission of all charges on this account when the Patent Office Vote was before the Committee.
  MR. PARNELLwanted to know how it happened that the Vote for Law
  786
  Charges and Criminal Prosecutions (Ireland) had been raised from £5,422 to £10,422? The hon. Member the Secretary for the Treasury said a little while ago that to the best of his opinion all these charges were for the current year. He (Mr. Parnell) wished to direct the hon. Gentleman's particular attention to this special matter, as it was curious that the expenses for prosecutions and general law charges last year was £5,422, and this year it was nearly double. He wished again to ask him whether the whole of this £10,422 was incurred last year or this year?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, with regard to the matter, he had to repeat what he stated the other night—that the provision for the Law Charges had been insufficient for some time past, and last year there was a Supplementary Estimate passed, but this was for the service of the year, and was not intended to cover arrears.
  MR. SULLIVANobserved that that was not an answer to the hon. Member for Meath. What they really wanted to know was, if this £4,000 or £5,000 was the sum to defray the Phœnix Park prosecutions?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was not. Certain legal proceedings which had arisen out of what were called the Phœnix Park Riots in Dublin were still pending on appeal, and therefore the accounts relating thereto could not be closed. I Not more than about £140 had been paid out of the public funds during the year ended 31st March, 1876, on account for the costs incurred by the then Irish Executive in reference to the proceedings in question. The current expenditure for Law Charges in Ireland had been in excess of the provision for three years running, and the House had granted Supplementary or Excess Estimates to make up that deficiency. It was thought right that that should continue to be so no longer, and, therefore, what was voted in these Estimates was for the year.
  MR. SULLIVAN: I want to know if the costs of the Phœnix Park prosecutions in which verdicts have been had against the Government have been paid? This is a matter of four or five years' standing, and we have not yet had a chance of discussing that transaction on a Vote of the House. If these are not those costs, when will those costs be

  787
  brought before us to give us an opportunity of discussing the transaction?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sullivan) was in error as to the present Vote. The transaction referred to occurred in 1871. He believed that the House had already voted a small sum this Session in respect of the costs incurred amounting to some few hundreds of pounds. There had been decisions in favour of the Government pronounced by the Court of Exchequer, and there were appeals pending, and until the question was determined all the expenses could not be finally ascertained. He believed the appeal would be heard during the present year.
  MR. BUTTwanted a further explanation. He spoke in the recollection of the Secretary for the Treasury when he said that he believed there was a sum of £6,000 in this present Session in a Supplementary Estimate for these costs of the Phœnix Park prosecutions.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): No. That sum was for general legal matters connected with Ireland and included the small sum already referred to.
  MR. BUTTsaid, then he might be wrong. But £6,000 had been paid out of the public Treasury for the defence of the police who had acted with such severity against many poor people on the occasion referred to, the late Chief Secretary, and the Under Secretary for Ireland, and he wanted to know under what authority that was done and the money so applied? No public money should have been expended without the sanction of Parliament and it was a very unconstitutional proceeding to do as had been done in this matter.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he was glad attention had been called to the subject, because for years past they had been watching the proceedings of the House with the view of obtaining a favourable opportunity for discussing the matter. They knew that law costs to the extent of about £5,000 had been incurred by the Government as the result of the Phœnix Park affair, and they had waited in vain to see the items composing it brought under the consideration of the House. They had been aware in Ireland for the past eight or ten years that a practice highly objectionable on constitutional grounds had prevailed. It
  788
  was the practice of indemnifying Government officials for illegal conduct. There could be nothing more injudicious than the carrying into effect of such a principle of indemnity. Irish Members wanted to know if it was true that the Government had swept through the Committee of that House, without conferring on its Members a fair opportunity of discussing the matter, Votes for thousands of pounds expended in the direction he had named. For his own part, he waited last Session night after night watching the Estimates, and at that time he had a suspicion that some day they would wake up and be told that the Vote had already been passed in the bulk of the Estimates. What he wanted to know that night was on what date it had been passed; and, if not so passed, when it would be brought into the Estimates? He did not hold the present Attorney General for Ireland personally responsible, but it was quite evident that a responsibility rested with somebody. Juries had again and again declared the conduct of the police and of the Government illegal, but upon a flimsy technicality the Government had recourse to an appeal. He appealed to the Government to let them have some definite information and explanation on the subject.
  THE CHAIRMANbeing about to put the Question—
  MR. BUTTsaid, that he did not think the Government ought to treat the matter with silent indifference. He really hoped some explanation would be given. Were they not intelligible questions? Could they be answered or not? Had large sums of money been applied to the defence of defendants in actions brought to recover damages for persons injured in the Phœnix Park riots? If the public money had been so applied, when was it voted by the House? It was not becoming on the part of Ministers to meet such a question with silence.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that be should be very glad if, at that moment, he could give them some precise information on the subject. He had no doubt whatever that considerable sums of public money had been paid to meet the costs of the defence alluded to. Those amounts had, no doubt, been accounted for at the proper time. The expenses of each year had been paid by the Votes of Parliament in each year.

  789
  In the Estimates under discussion he did not believe that there could be said to be anything for prospective costs in the matter alluded to, for the simple reason that it had not been anticipated that any further costs would be required. He might, however, add that very little, if any, of the money had been paid since the present Government came into office, almost all the litigation having occurred under the administration of the late Government.
  MR. PARNELLobserved that the right hon. Gentleman's statement appeared to be directly the contrary of that of the Attorney General for Ireland, who had said that the Vote included a sum for these costs.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)replied that he had referred to Excesses taken before Easter, and not to the Vote now before the Committee.
  MR. PARNELLasked, whether the Government had made any provision in the Estimates of the year for the costs of any pending appeal?
  MR. MACDONALD,considering the grave charge that had been brought against the Government by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), begged to move to report Progress. He thought that when a charge of such a description was made, and not answered directly or indirectly, such a course as he proposed should be adopted.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Macdonald.)
  MR. GOLDSMIDtrusted that the hon Member for Stafford would not press his Motion to report Progress. Her Majesty's Government could not well be charged with refusing to answer questions upon this subject, because they absolutely knew nothing about it, the circumstances in connection with it having occurred before they came into office. He thought hon. Members would be satisfied by an assurance from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary that inquiry should be made into the matter, and all information with respect to it given at a future time. So many questions were put to the Government upon various topics, that they must be walking cyclopœdias to be able to answer them off-hand.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONwished to add to what had been stated by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary and by the Attorney General for Ireland, that it was impossible for the Members of the present Government to inform the Committee precisely what was the amount which had been spent in the course of this litigation, because they were not in office when the chief part of the litigation was being carried on. His impression was—of course, he could not speak accurately on the subject at so short a notice—that information had been asked for and obtained as to the sums spent on those trials. At all events, it could never have been a secret that considerable sums had been expended by the Government on the conduct of these trials. If hon. Members representing Irish constituencies wished to raise any question with reference to these expenses, they should have done so upon the Vote for Law Charges in Ireland, in which, although not specially mentioned, these expenses were provided for. It seemed to him that the better course for them now to take would be to move for a Return of the sum which had been expended for this purpose. If, however, it was the intention of those hon. Members to object not to the amount of the costs incurred in this litigation, but to the policy out of which that litigation arose, it would be open to them to take that course on giving proper Notice. It was inconvenient that the subject should have been brought forward without Notice, and at a time when there was no expectation that it would be discussed, because the right hon. and learned Member for Londonderry County (Mr. Law), who was responsible for these proceedings having been taken, was not now in his place, although he had been in attendance on many previous occasions for the purpose of defending the conduct of the late Government in the matter. He (the Marquess of Hartington) trusted that if the subject were to be discussed on a future occasion due Notice would be given of the intention to bring it forward.
  MR. BUTTquite agreed with the noble Marquess that it was at an inconvenient time, and that the very best course the Government could take would be to assent to a Return setting fourth the money expended in defence of the actions raised. He did not think that

  791
  anybody could have expected that the question would have arisen; but at the same time, since it had come forward, the Government should have no objection to give a clear explanation of the matter. However the decision might go, he would on a future day raise the whole question, and ask the opinion of the House upon it.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, that if a Return of the expenses were moved for, he should be most happy to give every information in his power; and if the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) would communicate with him on the subject he would, as far as possible, assist him.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RYLANDSwished again to appeal to the Government to reduce the large amount now asked for, and he hoped they would accede to his request.
  Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,515,500, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments, to the 31st day of March 1878."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 149: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 60.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, CLASS I.
  Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £46,907, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, for British Embassy Houses and Legation and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £38,907, 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 1878, for British Embassy Houses and Legation and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture."
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFcomplained that the Embassy house at Berlin had not been purchased in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee which had sat in 1870. We were
  792
  now called on to pay £3,000 a-year for a house which might have been purchased for £50,000. It was clear from that that it would be wiser to purchase the house than to continue to pay the present rent, and he hoped Government would withdraw the Vote. He would not, however, move any Amendment.
  MR. GERARD NOELsaid, he agreed in the main with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that, as a rule, it was better to purchase a house than to take one on a lease, but that was only when they paid a fair and proper price for it. The Government were offered three houses in Berlin. One was Count Arnim's for £67,000, another at £60,000, and Dr. Strousberg's at £70,000. A competent surveyor was sent to Berlin to examine and report upon these properties, and he advised that the prices asked were excessive, and recommended that a lease should be taken of Dr. Strousberg's house. That had accordingly been done.
  MR. GOLDSMIDdid not think that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was satisfactory. If the Government had purchased Dr. Strousberg's house at £70,000 the interest on the purchase money would, with other expenses, have been but £2,300 a-year, whereas they had chosen to give £3,000 a-year for 10 years, and at the end of that period the value of the property would doubtless be enhanced, and if they purchased it, they would have to give a larger sum than was now asked. It was the same with other Embassy houses; for instance, at Rome and Vienna. The house at Vienna was not a very good one. He contended that if a house had been purchased at Vienna for the Embassy some years ago, more suitable accommodation could have been obtained at much less cost. For his own part, he thought it a mistaken policy to allow our Ambassadors to be lodged in the present hand-to-mouth fashion. He was of opinion that the right principle on which to proceed was to purchase good houses for them in all the principal Capitals of the world, and not to hire them at extravagant rentals.
  MR. HERMONcould state from his own experience that the Embassy house at Vienna, where he had received great hospitality, was a very comfortable one.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he had nothing to say against Sir Andrew Bu-

  793
  chanan, from whom he also had met with great courtesy; but he still thought the house was not a first-class one. All he contended for was that the Government would have done better if 10 years ago they had bought an Embassy house in one of the principal parts of Vienna.
  MR. HAYTERsaid, the charge for repairs of the Embassy houses at Pera and Therapia was excessive. The charge for Berlin was only £300, and for Paris £650; but the charge for the house at Pera was £916, and the house at Therapia £947. He also called attention to the addition charge of £12,000 for the Embassy house at Rome.
  MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that when the sum of £21,000 was voted in February last for the Embassy house at Rome, he stated that £12,000 more would be required to complete the purchase. The charges for the houses—for there were two—at Constantinople were for special works in the maintenance of the buildings. They were much less than the sum voted last year.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, there was a charge of £200 for repairs to the Embassy house at Madrid. Mr. Layard informed him yesterday that at least £1,000 would be required to be expended on it, and that it would then be a very bad residence. If the house were bought now, a great saving would be effected. It was a waste of public money to rent houses when they could be purchased at reasonable prices.
  MR. GERARD NOELsaid, a lease for 10 years of the house at Madrid existed, and therefore they could not purchase at present.
  MR. RYLANDSobjected to the purchase of Embassy houses. In 1831 the house purchased at Constantinople had to be pulled down, and temporary arrangements had to be made for the lodging of our Ambassador. The new building cost £200,000, and every precaution was taken against its destruction by fire. There was a reservoir constructed, pipes laid down, and every appliance adopted; but, after all, a fire occurred and the house was burnt down, because there was no water at the time in the reservoir, and the pipes leaked. There was no doubt a clerk of the works there at that time, as well as now, at a salary of £400 per annum, but all he appeared to do was to make out Reports
  794
  to be sent to the Treasury justifying expenditure in the enlargement and alteration of the buildings. Wherever there was a building bought for an Embassy there was certain to be a great increase in the extraordinary expenditure, and even the salary of the Ambassador was likely to be eked out in order that he might be able to keep up a style befitting to his large establishment. He had no doubt that our Ambassadors were very hospitable persons; but he had not had the honour of testing it. If he asked the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what was called in Foreign Office parlance a ticket for soup he, no doubt, would give him one to every Ambassador in Europe, who would, no doubt, entertain him with very great distinction. The question was whether it was to the public advantage. It certainly was not a sufficient reason for paying such large sums of money for Embassy houses. He complained that when the £21,000 was voted for the purchase of a house at Rome no intimation was given that a further sum of £12,000 would be required. The report of the Diplomatic Committee, of which he was a Member, recommended, by a majority of 1 only—namely, 9 to 8, that these houses should be purchased. The maintenance of these enormous buildings, so far from being an economy, was a perfect waste of public money. For himself, he recommended leases at moderate periods.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, whatever the majority was, the hon. Member's Report condemning the purchase of Embassy houses was not adopted, and the recommendation to purchase these houses remained as the recommendation of that Committee. He protested against Constantinople being singled out as an example. It was a very peculiar place. It was impossible to obtain houses there, except at very high rates, and the Embassy house had to be sufficiently large to accommodate not only the Ambassador and those who partook of his hospitality, but the attachés and the other employés of the Embassy. It was not fair to charge the Government with the fires that took place at Constantinople, as fires were constantly occurring in that city. Ho quite agreed that £400 per annum, and £50 a-year standing expenses, was much too large a sum to be paid to the clerk

  795
  of the works there for the work he did: £100 a-year to some employé would do quite as well. The annual expenditure at Paris was £1,200; but such a house would now cost many thousands a-year to rent. They were giving £3,000 a-year for the House at Berlin; but if the £70,000 had been paid, this would only have been £2,100 a-year—an arrangement which was as improvident as could be imagined. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was so enlightened in these questions. He did not blame the First Commissioner of Works, who had been misled by the surveyor's report. He did not like to move the rejection of the Vote, but it was necessary to put a check upon the yearly growing expenditure in connection with Embassy houses, and he therefore suggested that the Government should postpone the Vote, and see if they could not in the meantime make more satisfactory arrangements.
  MR. GERARD NOELsaid, he distinctly stated last February, when he moved a Supplementary Estimate of £21,000 for the Embassy house at Rome, that a further sum of £12,000 would be required. He did not see how a clerk of the works could live at Constantinople, and discharge his duties efficiently, on less than the salary and expenses now paid him.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that having been appealed to by the hon. Member for Christchurch, he would say a few words. Whenever cases of the purchasing of Embassy houses had been before the Treasury since he had had the honour of holding office, he had always taken an interest in them, and had favoured the purchase, except that on several occasions the terms had appeared to be excessive. But he was very sensible of the advantages of purchase, so well described by the hon. Member, where they could get the building on fair terms. It would, however, be unwise to postpone the Vote.
  MR. HAYTERsaid, he was not satisfied with the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, and could adopt no other course than to move that the Vote be reduced by £450, which represented the salary and travelling expenses of the clerk of the works at Constantinople and Therapia.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item for British Embassy Houses and Legation and Consular Buildings, be reduced by £450."—(Mr. Hayter.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFhoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the House; but now that the new works were about to be completed, allow the Government to withdraw the official in question, who was, he believed, a perfect nuisance at the Embassy. In fact, the Ambassador's wife could not move a chair from one room to another without his permission.
  MR. GERARD NOELsaid, it was possible some arrangement might be made for the withdrawal of the clerk in question.
  MR. DILLWYNsupported the reduction of the Vote.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that nothing was clearer than that, having engaged the services of the gentleman referred to, they were bound to pay him his salary; but still it was necessary to go to a division, as a protest against his retention in the appointment.
  MR. GERARD NOELpromised that all matters connected with the Vote which had been raised by hon. Members should be taken into serious consideration.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 77; Noes 124: Majority 47.—(Div. List, No. 61.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, CLASS II.
  (3.) £35,859, to complete the sum for the House of Lords Offices.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he could not allow the Vote to pass without remarking upon the very large expenditure incurred for officers in the House of Lords as compared with the House of Commons. The work done by the officers of the House of Commons was four times as much as that performed by the officers of the other House.
  MR. CHILDERSasked what arrangement had been made for the payment of Black Rod? That officer had hitherto been paid only a nominal salary; but rumour said he had received very large emoluments in fees.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the House of Lords paid their own officers. There

  797
  had been no new offices created, and no new charges incurred. He had reason to believe that the House of Lords would propose that Black Rod should be paid a salary of £2,000 a-year in future, which would be a very considerable reduction from the emoluments that officer had formerly received. The fees would be paid into the Exchequer, and it was estimated that between £4,000 and £5,000 would be paid into the Exchequer in the coming year, and the gain, therefore, to the Treasury would amount to between £2,000 and £3,000.
  MR. CHILDERSpointed out that the charges for the officers of the House of Lords was only £8,000 when he was Secretary of the Treasury; now it was no less than £19,000.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, of course if they kept an ornament they must pay for it. They were all quite aware that the House of Lords was an expensive ornament. The doorkeepers of the House of Commons were paid much less than similar officers in the House of Lords. The House of Commons sat for many hours every night, whereas the House of Lords scarcely ever had a late sitting; and yet, while the doorkeepers of the House of Commons received one £250, and the other £300 per annum, there were more of these functionaries in the House of Lords and they received at least as much, if not more, than those of the House of Commons for doing not a a tenth of the work. The pruning-knife of the Secretary of the Treasury might be well exercised in that branch of expenditure.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £41,187, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.
  (5.) £49,352, to complete the sum for the Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsuggested that it might be worthy of consideration whether the offices of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Privy Seal, which were now both held by the present Prime Minister, should be permanently combined, and that the £2,000 a-year, to which the Privy Seal was now entitled by law, but which was not drawn by the present holder of that office, should be received by the occupant of the two offices when
  798
  so united, in addition to the £5,000 now paid to him. The First Lord of the Treasury, although he had the largest share of responsibility and was put to great expense, was only paid £5,000 a-year, the same amount as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and various other officers of the Crown, and it was only reasonable that he should receive some increase of payment. He thought the time was opportune for granting some slight additional salary. Another point to be considered was that the Prime Minister had no social precedence except as Privy Councillor.
  MR. GOLDSMIDrose to Order. There was no payment for social precedence.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member was not strictly in Order.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, his suggestion was, that the two offices he had mentioned should be permanently united, and the salary of the Lord Privy Seal, which was now only nominal, added to that of the First Lord of the Treasury.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFinquired whether any clerks had been admitted into the Treasury by public competition? His reason for asking the question was, that lie understood the clerks in the Foreign Office did not receive as high salaries as the clerks in the Treasury, because the positions in the one Office were not thrown open to competition while in the other they were.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there had been no examinations for admission into the Treasury during the present Government by open competition. There had been two appointments made within the last three years, and the gentlemen selected were transferred from the Admiralty, where there had been a redundant number of clerks.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £74,583, to complete the sum for the Home Office and Subordinate Departments.
  (7.) £60,602, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the Government would take into consideration the salaries of the clerks in this Department, and raise them to a point equal to the salaries of

  799
  the clerks at the Treasury. Such salaries had been raised at the Colonial and Home Offices.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, it was stated the other day that it had become necessary to appoint a new Under Secretary in this Department. He wished to know who had been appointed, and whether it was a permanent one?
  MR. WHITWELLasked for an explanation as to what position the gentleman, if appointed, would fill?
  MR. BOURKEsaid, the Secretary of State, after a full consideration of the matter, found it was impossible to get on with the work of the Foreign Office without the aid of a gentleman well acquainted with legal documents and with the preparation of them. Some years ago a gentleman with such acquirements was appointed to assist the Colonial Office. Sir Julian Pauncefote, who had for some time acted as legal adviser to the Colonial Office, had been appointed Assistant Under Secretary to the Department. The appointment was a permanent one, and the gentleman appointed would perform the double function of looking after such of the legal business of the Department as was not referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and of taking a share in the current business of the Under Secretary's and the Assistant Under Secretary's Departments. Since the appointment of Sir Julian the work had been performed in a more satisfactory manner. With regard to the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, he had to state that his noble Friend at the head of the Department was most anxious to carry out economy in his Department. He had given much consideration to the question of the salaries, and last year and the year before a very careful inquiry was made with reference to the salaries of the clerks in the Foreign Office and the salaries of the clerks in the Treasury and the Colonial Office, and it was found very difficult to make a just comparison between the salaries paid in the Foreign Office and those paid in other offices. The Foreign Office, upon the whole, came to the conclusion that the clerks in the Foreign Office were not paid less than the clerks in the Treasury and the Colonial Office, because their hours of employment were different and they had different functions to perform. He could not hold out any hope at pre-
  800
  sent that there would be an increase in the salaries.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, it was only fair to remark that as a new appointment was requisite, a better selection could not possibly have been made than that of Sir Julian Pauncefote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £30,110, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
  MR. DILLWYNcomplained of the great delay in this office in making the Returns ordered by Parliament.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Dillwyn) spoke as if the Colonial Department had only to put its hands into a basket and produce a Return asked for. He would admit that there had been sometimes delays in the production of Papers ordered by Parliament; but it was due to the necessities of the case, and arose through the Office having to send to distant parts of the world for the information desired; and then, after waiting probably many weeks or months for the arrival of a mail, when it came, the Returns had to be compiled. He would, however, endeavour to secure that the Orders of the House should be fulfilled as punctually as possible, and no effort on the part of the Colonial Office should be wanting to promote the convenience of hon. Gentlemen. He might observe that there had been no reduction in the number of clerks, but a re-arrangement of their duties in the Office.
  (9.) £27,919, to complete the sum for the Privy Council office and subordinate Departments.
  MR. WHITWELLasked, why it was intended to abolish the Secretaryship of the Veterinary department; and at this time, when so much attention was necessary in reference to the cattle plague?
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought there was a very large number of clerks in the Office in proportion to the amount of work which was done. No doubt, the Department issued very many statistics, but a large portion of them were of no value whatever. He doubted whether the inspection of foreign cattle had been sufficiently strict, and hoped that in future the Department would be administered with greater vigour. The sum of £6,000 was voted, and that seemed to him to be amply sufficient for

  801
  an inspection which should guard this country against the importation of the cattle plague.
  VISCOUNT SANDONstated that Dr. Williams, who had been working very hard, was prematurely cut off this year, and he did not think the re-organization of the Office was completely arranged at the present moment. With regard to the working of the Office being rendered as efficient as possible, he could assure the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Barclay) that the Lord President took an immense amount of personal trouble in this matter. His noble Friend had been constantly watching the working of the Office during the last few months, and if the hon. Gentleman had any suggestions to make for the promotion of its efficiency the noble Duke would be very glad to receive them. The Department, he might observe, was not in his (Viscount Sandon's) hands administratively, being entirely administered by the Lord President of the Council; but he would communicate to him the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  MR. A. J. MOORE,alluding to the charge of £278 for special trains, asked what they were employed for by this Department?
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the outlay was in connection with the visits to the Queen when special Privy Councils were held in the country.
  MR. RAMSAYasked for an explanation concerning the 18 clerks of the lower division who had been recently appointed.
  MR. BIGGARasked, whether any Inspectors in England were paid out of local rates, or whether all were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and what special duties they had to perform?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN,in reference to the remark of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, said, he had always understood that every Department was represented by some Member of the Government in that House, and that if the noble Lord was not the officer properly responsible for the Vote now before the Committee, it was desirable that the House should know who was responsible.
  VISCOUNT SANDONremarked, that he did not mean to say that he was not the proper officer to answer in that House for the Department, which, however, was practically not under his ad-
  802
  ministration; but under that of the noble Duke. The 18 clerks of the lower division took the place of the 23 temporary clerks who were formerly employed.
  MR. WHEELHOUSEbore testimony to the great exertions made both by the central and the local authorities to prevent the spread of cattle disease since its re-appearance in England.
  VISCOUNT SANDONexplained, in reply to the hon. Member for Cavan, that in some cases it was desirable to appoint temporary Inspectors who did not come on the permanent Staff. They were sent down when any outbreak of disease occurred; and they also had to see that railway companies performed their duties; and that the local authorities did their duty. He believed the cost was defrayed out of Imperial funds.
  MR. BUTTsaid, what his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan wanted to know was, whether the expenses of these gentlemen were all paid out of the Estimates voted by Parliament; or were any of those expenses paid out of local funds, as in Ireland? Did any of these Inspectors discharge analogous duties to the Inspectors in Ireland?
  VISCOUNT SANDONreplied, that he would give the hon. Member for Cavan the information asked for before the Report on Supply was taken.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYexpressed the hope that a Report with reference to the recent cases of cattle plague, showing how the disease had found its way into this country, and stating what action had been taken by the Veterinary department in dealing with it, would be laid before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
  VISCOUNT SANDONthought the suggestion a very valuable one, and he would take care that some Report was laid on the Table of the House on the subject as soon as possible.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £48,506, 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 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he desired to call the attention of the Committee to the enormous increase which had taken place in the expenditure of the Board of Trade in consequence of the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act of last year. He found that the total amount required for salaries and allowances under that Act was no less a sum than £47,138. He was not quite sure that it was contemplated, when the measure to which he referred became law, that it would be necessary to appoint such a large number of officials as had actually been appointed—namely, 170, and he must call attention to the fact that many of the gentlemen who had received appointments under the Act were officers of the Royal Navy already in receipt of pensions. He should like to know, and he thought it would also be satisfactory to the country to be informed whether the salaries of the surveyors of the Board were fixed in view of the amount of labour which they rendered to the public, or in view of the fact that they received additional sums of money in the shape of those pensions?
  MR. HERMONsaid, the Merchant Shipping Act of last Session was very much required, and was a very important one; and that being the case hon. Members should not now carp at the expense necessarily incurred in carrying it out. Every Act which was passed entailed a certain and justifiable outlay, and hon. Gentlemen should not forget that fact when they were doing all they could to press certain measures through the House.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he would admit the force of much that had been said in relation to the importance of the Merchant Shipping Act; but he did not think that credit should necessarily be given to the manner in which it was being carried out, and he would like to ask what were the results of the expenditure? There could be no objection to any reasonable and proper expenditure being incurred in carrying out an Act of Parliament, but the question was, whether the outlay which took place under the Merchant Shipping Act was an expenditure of that description. In connection with the subject he desired to call the attention of the Committee to certain proceedings which had been taken by the Board of Trade surveyors, and he must say that the Returns pre-
  804
  sented by that Board to Parliament were either very misleading, or that the work which was being done was not only unnecessary, but was not at all what was contemplated or desired when the measure of last Session was passed. Parliament had desired one thing, and one thing only, in the legislation to which he alluded, and that was that the Board of Trade should interfere where it was necessary to prevent ships from proceeding to sea when they were in a dangerous condition. He had before him a long list of vessels which were said to have been detained by surveyors of the Board owing to unseaworthiness, overloading, or other causes. It was a list which was perfectly appalling; and he did not hesitate to say that if the Returns which had been presented to Parliament by the Board of Trade were authentic and accurate, and did not include a number of items requiring explanation, they would reflect upon the shipowners of the country and upon the underwriters more than any documents which had ever been laid before the House of Commons. But what was the actual state of the case? He did not say that the officers of the Board of Trade were not rendering excellent service to the country; but he desired to point out that Parliament was paying for certain things being done which were entirely unnecessary, and which the Legislature had never contemplated. Perhaps the Committee would be surprised to hear, but it was the fact, that what the Board of Trade had been doing was not to exhibit great care and anxiety in order to prevent the going to sea of unseaworthy ships, but to lay hold of vessels which were known to be unseaworthy, and which were consequently under actual repair at the time of their "detention." In other words, the Board went through the farce of "detaining" those ships when there was riot the slightest intention of sending them to sea; and then they were inserted in the official lists as vessels which the activity of the officers of the Board of Trade had prevented from going to sea when in an unseaworthy condition. For instance, a vessel called the Hope, appeared in the Board of Trade list. This ship had put to sea in a seaworthy state, but was obliged by stress of weather to put back to port, where, when repairing the damage done to her, a detainer was laid upon her to prevent

  805
  her from going to sea. Ultimately, she was released; but the fact was that she was voluntarily placed by the owners under repair, and ought not to have appeared on the list at all. In another case a vessel, having met with heavy weather, broke a crank shaft; the owners could not afford or did not choose to repair her, and wished to have her laid up for sale. There was no thought of sending her to sea, but the Board of Trade stepped in and "detained" her. In another case the Board of Trade officials laid a vessel under detention, and ordered her cargo to be unloaded. Her owner appealed, and her cargo was ordered to be put on board again. The hon. Member went page after page through his Return, and read instances wherein ships were detained on alleged frivolous grounds; one of them, notably, on the statement of a drunken sailor, who stated unfoundedly that her pumps would not work. He (Mr. Reed) did not complain that vessels were detained when unseaworthy; what he complained of was that the Board of Trade did not lay cases of the kind he had mentioned before Parliament, and he emphatically objected to such vessels being paraded in the Returns of the Board of Trade as ships which would have proceeded on their voyage but for the vigilance of the Board of Trade surveyors. In some of those cases the owners were put to considerable expense, and in others owners resisted and refused to pay damages which they considered unjust. Those were matters which he considered called for explanation; and he hoped for the satisfaction of the House and the shipowners, for whom the Government seemed to care so much, that they would be given. He wished also to call attention to a statement formerly made by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board with reference to the percentage of the vessels detained which had been classed at Lloyds and other offices. There was something he could not understand in that statement—that of the 50 ships detained since the Act of last year, 22 had been classed; but it now appeared that only 12 classed ships had been detained, seven of which had been classed at Lloyds and five at other Registry Offices. In other cases ships had been detained, simply because of imaginary defects. What he wished to point out was, that it was very injurious
  806
  to the register offices and shipowners, as well as to the public, to have such ships, ships which had been classed and which were detained only because of some trivial defects, put into the same category as those which were detained for unseaworthiness. He did not wish to reflect upon the Board of Trade, or give the right hon. Gentleman any uneasiness; but the practical suggestion he would make was, that the Return, professing as it did to give specific information to the House, ought to be drawn up in the clearest possible form so as to give exact information as to the ground on which the ships had been stopped. They ought not in future to look down the list and see the names of ships which had been detained under the circumstances alluded to, and then be told they had been stopped for unseaworthiness. The authority of the House ought not to be used, as it now practically was, to injure ship property in the way it must be injured when owners found their vessels improperly classed with unseaworthy ships. He could hardly doubt that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to give satisfaction to shipowners; but it never was intended to detain a vessel unnecessarily or to cast odium on its owner, unless it was in a disreputable condition. He had said a few evenings ago that he was not entirely satisfied with the appointments which had been made under that Act. He had been complained of for that, but he still felt bound to say that gentlemen had been appointed at high salaries to perform duties which they did not understand. A very large part of their duties depended upon their knowledge of the structural condition and the state of repair of the ships, and he was afraid that at the Board of Trade, as in other places, people made the mistake of supposing that people who had been to sea in ships necessarily understood their construction. But a ship captain was no more able to go on board a ship and say what was necessary to be done for her in the shape of structural repairs than a shipbuilder was to command her, and he knew, as a matter of fact, that a great number of these officials admitted that they did not even know the name of some of the parts of the vessels. He would say, however, for the credit of the Department, that they had usually given the chief appointments to men in every way worthy of them, and

  807
  to officers who understood the technical details.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he could speak from his own knowledge of many similar cases to those of which his hon. Friend(Mr. E. J. Reed) had spoken, for during the past two or three years numerous complaints had been made to him with reference to the objectionable manner in which ship's owners had been dealt with by the Board of Trade. In one case which was brought under his notice, the ship had just arrived in port, and it was found that a small part of her bulwarks had been broken away. The captain had scarcely commenced to unload, when the vessel was arrested as unseaworthy. She was surveyed from day to day, and £15 was charged by the surveyors; and payment of the amount was forced from the captain by the Board of Trade, who would not release the vessel until the money was forthcoming. In another case, a ship had been arrested by the Board of Trade, acting upon an anonymous letter addressed to them in London. They sent off a telegram ordering the arrest of the vessel, and that order was complied with. Yet that letter was afterwards found to have emanated from a rival owner, and to have been inspired by unworthy motives. Such cases as these and others he could name reflected great discredit upon the surveyors. With regard to side lights, great complaints were made by smaller shipowners, such as owners of coasting vessels, who could ill afford to pay for the caprices of the surveyors. He had heard of a case in which the side lights of a ship had been objected to no less than three times by three different surveyors, who had each ordered a different pattern. At one port the surveyor insisted on the lights being altered. His order was complied with; but at the next port the ship put into, the surveyor condemned the new lights, and ordered others, and this instruction was also carried out. And then, again, at a third place, another surveyor had taken a different opinion, and had ordered other lights. He knew the Act of Parliament had not intended to deal with such cases; but it was a fact that a surveyor could and did go on board ships, particularly coasting vessels, and insist upon these alterations being made. If they found a ship wanting a rail, or some small thing of that kind the result was
  808
  that she was arrested and detained until the repair was carried out. The surveyors were composed of officers in the Royal Navy, and it seemed to him that they were not proper persons to appoint to such a position. The ships of the Navy, as everyone knew, were fitted up in a style which was impossible in merchant ships, and an officer who had come from one of Her Majesty's ships, which had been fitted up without regard to expense, was likely to have notions of his own how a merchant vessel should be prepared for sea. He would naturally expect a higher standard of excellence in merchant ships than at all necessary when he examined them. If shipowners were to be obliged to fit up their vessels as ships in the Royal Navy were fitted up, those owners would soon be driven to the Bankruptcy Court. Then it was most unfair, he held, that merchant captains should be judged by the same standard as captains in the Navy. There were many cases where, in consequence of the assessors being Navy captains, captains of merchant vessels did not get the proper allowance made for them for thenature of their service as compared with that of the Navy. He should be happy to submit a list of the cases he had alluded to to the Secretary to the Board of Trade. He also stated that he was informed as a fact that the surveyors received £1 a-day as expenses in such cases where ships were detained.
  MR. GOURLEYsaid, the Returns of the Board of Trade were misleading with reference to the stoppage of classed ships, and he would mention a ease in which a vessel that was being repaired by the owners was stopped by the Board. The Returns led to the impression that classed ships were stopped, because they were unseaworthy, whilst in many of the cases, it was because the owners had not done a few necessary, but non-essential, repairs. He also reiterated the complaint made by the last speaker (Mr. J. W. Barclay) of a want of regularity and system among the Board of Trade surveyors as to what was really required to render a ship fit for sea. For instance, some of them had insisted upon particular lights, which were objected to at the first port the vessel came to. He thought there should be a more systematic survey, and that rules should be prepared for the guidance of the surveyors, in order that the

  809
  shipowners might be secure from that harassment they laboured under at present. He did not quite concur with hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) as to the appointment of captains as Board of Trade surveyors. His experience went to show that many captains knew rather more than some shipbuilders, not only about the technicalities, but about building and repairing.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) had complained of want of system in the inspection of ships by Board of Trade officers. The principal object of the Act of last year, however, was to introduce more systematic action and uniformity of practice, and in that it had been successful, for the blemish referred to had been reduced, if not altogether obliterated, by the Act of last year. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had complained of what he styled the enormous expense which had been incurred under the Act, and which he said amounted to £47,000. If the hon. Member had looked to the other side of the account, he would have seen that giving credit for the amount received by the Treasury, the expense was not £47,000, but, in round numbers, £13,000. The hon. Member further complained that a number of officers of the Royal Navy had been appointed under the Act by the Board of Trade; but the fact was that, so far as he knew, not one officer of the Royal Navy had been appointed to conduct the survey of ships alleged to be unseaworthy. Again, with respect to the complaint of the hon. Member as to the number of surveyors, it should be recollected that the House passed the Act with a full knowledge of the Staff that was to be employed, and it was now rather late to make a complaint on that point. With respect to the criticisms of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed), he would say that they amounted to a contradiction—that the Board of Trade had done too much and had done too little. They had acted simply in accordance with the intentions of Parliament in discharging the duty imposed on them. Reference had been made by the hon. Member to the large number of ships that were, as he said, unnecessarily detained, as they were not going to sea. Now, he (Sir Charles Adderley) thought that was a compliment to the Act of last year. One
  810
  of the merits, indeed, a special one, of the Act of last year was that it limited the duty of the Board of Trade, as imposed on them by the Act of 1873, to stopping only unseaworthy ships when about to go to sea. The whole list of the quotations of the hon. Member for Pembroke was in praise of the Act of last year, as cases of the more offensive duty which existed before; and he would ask the hon. Gentleman to give him the list, and he would then state the real facts respecting every one of the cases mentioned, and would lay a statement of them on the Table of the House, and thus enable hon. Members to judge on what foundation the present statements were made. He believed that ex parte statements were generally without foundation. He had had a Return made and carefully revised, of all the ships which had been stopped since the Act of last year came into operation, and he found that all of them were being brought forward for some service at sea. He thought that the hon. Member for Pembroke must allow that his charge in that respect had fallen to the ground.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he could allow nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman said he stopped those ships when they were brought forward to go to sea; but a ship which was brought "forward" need not be going to sea.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYremarked that one of the benefits of the Acts of last year was that it only called upon the Board of Trade to stop a rotten ship from going to sea, and not when she was brought forward to prepare to go to sea, and he defied the hon. Member to adduce a single instance of a ship being stopped which was not going to sea. The next point of the hon. Member was the statement he (Sir Charles Adderley) had made to the House, in answer to a Question, as to the kind of ships which were detained during the three months after the coming into force of the Act, and the hon. Member thought the answer conveyed a reflection upon Lloyd's. So far from that being the case, it was the highest compliment that could be paid to Lloyd's. It was his (Sir Charles Adderley's) duty, in answer to the special question, to show that classification was no guarantee against unsafe ships being sent to sea, for out of 12 ships that were detained, six of them were classified at Lloyd's. And if

  811
  the classification at Lloyd's, which was the most perfect, accurate, and trustworthy in the country, was no guarantee against a ship being sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, what guarantee could any classification have? No less than 50 per cent of the ships detained for defective hulls were classed at Lloyd's. The hon. Member then stated that the Board of Trade had appointed officers under the Act to perform duties they did not understand, and complained that more engineers had not been selected. It so happened that there was a considerable number of engineers, both amongst the principal and subordinate officers, and he could only say that all matters in reference to machinery passed under the eye of an engineer officer; but it must be remembered that many other subjects had to be considered and decided on by the principal Superintendents of Districts, and that the various requirements of the officers included a knowledge of seamanship as well as of engineering, and of the general work of ship artificers. The hon. Member might as well say that over a great landed estate the agent should be an agricultural engineer. On that ground, therefore, he took issue with the hon. Member. He hoped the Committee would consider that the Government had made some effort to perfect the survey organization throughout the Kingdom laid down by the Act of last year, and that they had effected this not only without increasing the burdens on the public, but with an absolute saving to the country.
  MR. D. JENKINSobserved that though there was no increased burden on the public, yet a large amount had been received in a form which created a tax on merchant shipping. He objected very much to the system of appointing naval officers and merchant captains to be surveyors of merchant ships. It by no means followed that seamen made the best surveyors. [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: They are not appointed under the new Act.] Not one? [Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY: No.] Then the sooner they were got rid of the better. He wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman had not said how the ships referred to as being unseaworthy had been classed at Lloyd's. In his opinion not a single one of the ships had been classed A1.
  MR. E. J. REEDexpressed much surprise at the tone and substance of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he (Mr. Reed) had taken his instances from the old Act, but at least two of them were taken from the new Return. He could not admit that the Board of Trade had in all cases made a judicious choice of surveyors, or that they had always entered upon their duties in the proper spirit. The right hon. Gentleman said he would only answer his (Mr. Reed's) complaints, if he would give him a list of the vessels detained. All he could say was that all the details in his possession were at the right hon. Gentleman's service, and he should be glad to see that a public Department could be vindicated.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYwished to explain that when the principal surveyor was an engineer, the second was always a sailor, and vice versâ. He would again remind the Committee that one of the improvements of the Act of last Session was limiting the Board of Trade to detain only those ships that were about to proceed in an unsafe state to sea. Before that Act passed the Board was obliged to detain ships on other grounds.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, there could be no doubt that the Board of Trade sometimes stopped ships for very small matters; but he must honestly admit that the Board of Trade surveyors managed things fairly well. The Act had given the Board of Trade enormous powers, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would deal generously and discreetly with shipowners, because a vessel could not be stopped without serious damage to a man's property, and it was not right that ships should be stopped for the fees. It was too late to complain then, and he hoped the Board would not place unnecessary restrictions on trade.
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDasked the President of the Board of Trade, why it was that the Board had not provided standards of metric weights and measures? Some years ago a Bill was brought in and carried by the then hon. Member for Dumfries, by which metric weights and measures were legalized. No standard for the metric system had, however, been since provided by the Board of Trade. He saw that there was

  813
  an item in the Votes for the expenses of attending the Congress on the metric system which met at Paris, and he wanted to know whether the Government meant at any time to prepare metric standards; and if not, whether they proposed to abolish the legalization of a system which it was impossible to test by standards?
  MR. RYLANDSobserved that the real question was, whether the surveying officers had not been appointed in excessive numbers, and whether the effect had not been an oppressive action on merchant shipping. The general rule of the Civil Service of the country was, that when an officer received a salary which was a full remuneration for the duties he performed, any pension he might be in the enjoyment of merged in the salary. In the present case, however, a new rule had been established which the President of the Board of Trade had not at all justified. He objected also to the sum paid to certain officers of the Staff for appearing as experts, or producing documents in Courts of Law at the instance of litigants. In conclusion he moved that the Vote be reduced by £4,000, which sum, at the least, was enjoyed by the first-named officers in the form of pensions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £144,506, 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 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments:"—(Mr. Rylands.)
  MR. RAMSAYwished to ask a question with reference to a different branch of this Vote, and that was, whether the expenses of the Law Charges included the costs incurred by the Crown in the various attempts which had been made to subvert the law of Scotland with respect to the foreshore and have the foreshore conveyed to the Crown. Various attempts had been made to deprive individuals of their right to the foreshore. By the law of Scotland persons having the land adjacent to the sea had usually a right to the foreshore. The Crown brought an action a few years ago for the purpose of obtaining the right to the whole of the foreshore; but that action was according
  814
  to the Scotch law decided against the Crown. He thought it was wrong that the Crown should try to establish rights which had never heretofore been known in the law of Scotland.
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYbelieved there had been an attempt on the part of the Board of Trade to defend the rights of the Crown with regard to certain foreshore in Scotland, and that it had failed; but he thought the Vote did not apply to that. The Vote proposed for the surveying staff was the inevitable result of the Act of last year. The whole staff had been transferred to the Treasury and the receipts also; and the two so nearly balanced each other that there was only a net charge of £13,000. As to the number of the new officers, he could say they were only 10, a number much smaller than was contemplated when the Act was under discussion. He could hardly conceive on what ground the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rylands) complained of the Vote, or in what other way he would propose the carrying out of the Act of last year. The hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) asked why this Department had not adopted the metric system. They had not done so simply because they had not been authorized by Parliament to do so. It was a matter not to be decided by any Executive Department.
  MR. E. J. REEDsaid, it was a rule of the Public Service that if an officer in the receipt of a pension received new employment, his pension should merge for the time in the salary which he was to receive. He should very much like to hear, what had not been given, an explanation as to the way in which such of these officers as had naval pensions had been dealt with. And he would repeat the question, did these estimates bring a number of gentlemen for the first time into the Civil Service of the country?
  MR. D. JENKINSasked, whether there would be 10 additional appointments under the new Act?
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDwished to know, whether the Government would ask Parliament to give them the authority which the right hon. Gentleman said they wanted.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped the right hon. Gentleman would answer the questions put. Would a surveyor be entitled to receive a salary and a pension at the same time?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that as difficulty would have arisen in settling the rights of these gentlemen, it was thought advisable to transfer them with all their rights as they stood.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that 178 men appeared for the first time in the Estimates receiving an average pay of £300 each. Were these salaries formerly paid out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, or were they paid under some new scale settled between the Board of Trade and the Treasury? If their footing was a new one, then the Committee were entitled to apply to them the rule which was applied to all Departments—namely, that their salaries should be the whole sum which they received. While they were drawing salary the pension should be in abeyance.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he fully concurred in the remarks which had been made. He understood that the old Staff would be paid under this new arrangement precisely the same salaries and pensions as they were paid under the Mercantile Marine Fund. There were additional officers with additional duties, and their salaries were paid under the scale now before the Committee. The new ones received no pension.
  MR. RYLANDSWere they on the Civil Service Establishment before this new arrangement?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: They were not. If they were, they would not receive pensions for both naval and civil service.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that this was so, no doubt. But these gentlemen, receiving pensions already, wore put in the way of receiving other pensions without passing through the Civil Service. This was, therefore, a re-organization.
  MR. WHITWELLhad hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have seen that all the exertions made on that side of the House were in his favour by assisting him to keep down expenditure. The Board of Trade had taken over from former establishments a large Staff without proper consideration, and thus all were liable to become civil servants, and to acquire pensions accordingly. The Board had not been sufficiently careful in the appointment of their officers, and had spent large sums which were unintelligible—for instance, £900 for "charwomen."
  MR. CHILDERSwished to know whether the transferred officers would in future be in precisely the same position as they had been in the past?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that was undoubtedly the intention and spirit of the arrangement, and he would take very good care, so long as he was at the Treasury, that it should be carried out.
  MR. RYLANDSinquired, whether they had been receiving from the Mercantile Marine Fund salaries with the same annual increment as it was now proposed to pay them.
  MR. W. H. SMITHreplied that they were transferred precisely as they stood, no change whatever being made in their position.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. RAMSAYagain complained of the action of the Crown in attempting to establish a right to the foreshore in Scotland, and moved to reduce the Vote by £500.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £148,006, 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 1878, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Subordinate Departments."—(Mr. Ramsay.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the right to the foreshore in Scotland belonged to the Crown, except in cases where it was granted to the owners of private property; and it would be an unfortunate principle to lay down that, where a Crown right existed, that right should not be enforced.
  MR. CHILDERShoped the Motion would not be pressed.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, in cases where the right to the foreshore was vested in the proprietors by charter, there would be no difficulty in showing their right to it.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

MUTINY BILL.
(Mr. Gathorne Hardy, The Judge Advocate General, Mr. Stanley.)
MUTINY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDON,in rising to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is not desirable to bring under the provisions of the Mutiny Act any Militia officers, except officers belonging to regiments embodied for Service or assembled for training, and such officers as are already specially provided for by sections 56 to 58, and 66 to 70 of the Militia Act of 1875 (38 and 39 Vic. c. 69),"
  said, that before going into Committee on the Bill, he wished to draw attention to the important change proposed to be made in it, and if necessary to take the opinion of the House upon the question, as he thought it was the duty of the Government to state their intentions with regard to it. It was proposed to place the whole of the Militia officers under the Mutiny Act, and no reason had been assigned for that step, so far as he was aware, except that he found it recommended in the Report of the Select Committee which sat last year on the Militia Acts, and which formed only a part of a series of recommendations agreed upon by that Committee. The Secretary of State for war, in moving the Army Estimates, drew attention to the point, and said that he would fully dwell upon it when the Mutiny Bill came before the House, and it was with some surprise that he (Sir Alexander Gordon) found that the Mutiny Bill was read a second time without any notice being taken of the change. The Secretary of State for War had said that the change was necessary because the Militia, being no longer a civilian corps, it was thought desirable to bring it more into conformity with the Regular Army. In Paragraph 103 of their Report, the Committee gave it as their opinion that—
  "It is highly desirable that officers of the Militia should be placed under the Mutiny Act not only during the training, but also during the non-training period,"
  and the grounds on which they justified their recommendation were—first, that the subject had been prominently
  818
  brought before the Committee; secondly, that His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was in favour of the proposal; and, thirdly, that other officers of experience had expressed a similar opinion. In reference to those assertions, he undertook to show in a few words that the question had not been prominently before the Committee, that the Commander-in-Chief had not expressed an opinion in favour of the proposal, and that other officers of experience had not expressed a similar opinion. He would refer to the Blue Book containing the evidence, and he must complain that it had been presented to the House in a most incomplete form, and without any index, so that great trouble had been incurred in going through the 10,030 questions which it contained. Thirty-one witnesses were examined by the Committee, including 17 Militia officers, and of those 17, only three had been asked questions on the subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman then referred to the evidence given by Lord Norreys, Major Garnham, and Sir Robert Cunliffe, and contended that it showed that they had not brought the subject before the Committee in a prominent manner, and yet that was all the evidence which was brought before the Committee. Then as to the evidence of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, he submitted that it did not show that he was in favour of the proposal. Indeed, His Royal Highness spoke with uncertainty on the matter, because he did not appear fully to comprehend the questions put to him. He had his attention drawn to the 107th clause of the Mutiny Act, which provided that any man enrolled and not complying with the provisions of the Act should be tried by a court-martial, and was then asked his opinion as to the propriety of bringing military commanding officers into connection with the Mutiny Act, and His Royal Highness said—"It has always been so, has it not?" Nine other officers of the Regular Army were examined, but not a single question was put to one of them as to Militia officers being placed under the Mutiny Act. General Peel and Mr. Clode, the legal adviser to the War Office, were examined, but to them no question on the subject was put, and therefore he was justified in saying that the Report of the

  819
  Committee was not borne out when it said that experienced officers were in favour of the proposition. Seventy officers of Depôt Brigades, who were examined by the Committee by means of written queries, had not been asked a question on the subject, nor had the 156 Militia colonels, to whom a series of questions had been submitted, and therefore he was justified in stating that, with the exception of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, no experienced officer had expressed any opinion on the question. For 100 years, at least, the well-established and recognized principle on that matter was that the State had a right to control those whom it paid, and Militia officers did not belong to that category. The principle to which he referred was settled in 1792 by the decision of Lord Loughborough in the case of Sergeant Grant, who appealed against the sentence passed on him, on the ground that he had never been enlisted, and therefore was not liable under the Mutiny Act. The case came before the Queen's Bench, and it was decided that he had received pay as a soldier, and was therefore subject to the penalties of the Mutiny Act. The Army Reserve men, who received 4d. per day, were not under the Mutiny Act, because they were not upon full pay, nor was his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock), or any other officer who was on half-pay, liable to those penalties. Much less, then, were Militia officers, who received no pay, liable. He could not tell what was the object of placing these officers under the Mutiny Act, since the Crown could at present remove them from their position in the same way that half-pay officers were removed in cases of misconduct. The change, however, which was now proposed was to be made by inserting one line in the Mutiny Act—namely, "whether they be the Regular Forces or the Militia." The effect of that alteration, if it were agreed to, would be to place the officers of the Militia upon a different footing from the men of the same Force, and that would be a very anomalous thing to do. Beyond that it would place upwards of 3,000 Militia officers who had entered the Service on the understanding that they should not be liable to the Mutiny Act during the non-training period, under its provisions at all times. At present the
  820
  Militia were only under the Mutiny Act when embodied for service or called out for training, and under no circumstances could they be subjected to the penalty of death. By the insertion of these little words Militia officers would be placed on the same footing as ordinary officers of the Army. Again, the Militia could not be embodied unless Parliament was called together within 10 days; but under this Act, the Government had power to call any number of Militia officers out for duty. Now, he contended that it was unconstitutional to call out a Militia officer unless his regiment was embodied. As things now stood, a Militia officer was at liberty to go where he pleased; but if the Bill passed in its present shape, he would not be able to go abroad, even to take his wife to Boulogne, without the permission of the Horse Guards, and he certainly would not be able to go to Khiva if he wanted. The proposal had been made without a single word being said in its favour by any Minister, and therefore he was at a loss to know on what grounds it had been brought forward. He had no opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the subject except by the present Motion. He hoped, therefore, the House would not assent to this part of the Bill, or that before it went to the House of Lords the Government would consult the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of the step which they were about to take. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  MR. J. HOLMS,in seconding the Motion, said, the question which it involved was one of great constitutional, as well as financial, importance. Ever since the days of Charles II. the House of Commons had very jealously guarded its power over the Army, and, indeed, it was in that very jealousy that the Mutiny Act had its origin. As the law now stood, the Militia when embodied came under the operation of the Mutiny Act, but when they returned to their homes they again formed part of the civil community. It was, however, proposed by the Bill before the House that officers and non-commissioned officers of Militia should always be under the Mutiny Act, and in another Session the men might be placed in the same position. When the measure was introduced, the

  821
  Secretary of State for War said not one single word upon the Bill. What was the reason for this novel proposal? Had he found any serious difficulty in dealing with the Militia officers? Were they not amenable to control, or was it aiming at bringing the whole of the Militia ultimately under the Act because there had been so many desertions from the ranks of late? The right hon. Gentleman had not said anything of the kind, and had apparently never considered the officer his chief difficulty. Yet he asked for power to place the whole of the officers and non-commissioned officers under the Mutiny Act. What was the reason of this request? Militia officers themselves were divided on the question; one side were in favour of the Bill and the other opposed to it. He would take the last first. At present, when the Militia were called out they were under the Mutiny Act; but when they were disembodied, they became part of the civil community, and were under its laws. Although he (Mr. Holms) was personally opposed to the Militia, yet he was in favour of doing justice to everyone — the officers and privates of the Militia as much as anyone else; and it was only fair to them that we should protect their interests; we had made a contract with them, and were bound to do them justice; and those who were in favour of maintaining things as they were considered that the 105th Article of War bore completely upon the question, and provided adequate punishment for all crimes not capital. He now came to the other class who were in favour of the Bill; and the reason they were in its favour was the fact that the measure would offer increased facilities for getting into the Regular Army through the Militia, a step they were anxious to take. When the measure for abolishing Purchase was passed, the nation expected great results; but all the benefit of that change was quickly disappearing. When Purchase was abolished, the understanding was that there should be but one road into the Army—namely, competitive examination. Had that system been maintained or not? At first, it was declared that there would be great difficulty in getting men to offer themselves for commissions in the Army after Purchase was abolished; but the fact was that in 1873, 1874, and 1875, the number of Cavalry and Infantry appointments was 1,180,
  822
  or a yearly average of 393, while the average number of candidates was 1,300; and at the half-yearly examination in July last the number of vacancies was 135, for which 675 candidates presented themselves, or five for every place. Looking at the justice which should be done to the Army and the country, it might have been thought that the Secretary of State for War would not have permitted candidates to enter by any other door; but there was a side-door to the Army, and one which he (Mr. Holms) thought, should not be opened so wide—namely, the Militia. Year by year this door was opened wider. In 1873, 81 officers of Militia qualified; in 1874, 91; and in 1875, 100; so that in the three years 272 Militia officers qualified for the 1,180 places, or 23 per cent of the whole; and, within the last three months an Order had been issued increasing the number that might enter up to 142, so that about one-third of the whole of the commissions in the Army would be obtained through the Militia. If the House passed that Bill, they would have a great influx into the Army of officers with but slight examination. The condition of the Army was such that the House of Commons could scarcely separate this Session without knowing what the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Army was for the future. The right hon. Gentleman this Session had scarcely treated the House of Commons with due respect in relation to the Army. On the 5th of March, the Secretary of State for War made his speech on the Army Estimates, and informed the House that that morning hon. Members would find delivered to them a Report of the Committee on the Militia and Brigade Depôts.
  EARL PERCYrose to Order. The question was whether Militia officers should be put under the Mutiny Act? and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Helms) had commenced to speak on the general question of the conduct of the Government with respect to Army matters, which was not the subject before the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the question before the House was whether it should go into Committee on the Mutiny Bill. That being so, it appeared to him that the observations of the hon. Member for Hackney were relevant to the question.
  MR. J. HOLMSsaid, that although hon. Members had not been put in possession of the Report when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, in the course of which it was referred to at considerable length, yet it was ready for delivery several weeks before, because on the 17th of February The Times gave many extracts from it. The Report ought to have been delivered to hon. Members in time to enable them to form an intelligent opinion as to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying regarding it when referring to it on the Army Estimates. Again, although more than a month had elapsed since the discussion was postponed it had never been resumed, while £11,000,000 of the Army Estimates had yet to be voted. Yet hon. Members were now called upon to consider this Bill at a period when it must become law if the Army was not to go to pieces. He thought it would be but fair to hon. Members that the debate on those Estimates should be resumed with as little delay as possible, but that a day should now be named and that the resumed debate should be the First Order of the Day. Why was it that the Bill contained the words relating to Militia officers? It was because it was part of a great scheme embodied in the Committee on the Militia and Brigade Depôts Report. The right hon. Gentleman said, in his speech on the 5th of March, that the Committee had recommended that Militia officers should be subjected to the Mutiny Act. The Committee said that they had not made that recommendation without the knowledge that it must lead to a large increase of expenditure, and he thought it ought to be made clear to the House what that large expenditure was for. This was a very important question, and it was intimately connected with the Localization Scheme, for which the country had to pay £3,500,000. He maintained that it ought to be submitted to the House as a whole, accompanied by a Ministerial Statement, and he warned the House not on any consideration to accept the proposal which was now under discussion, but to ask the Government to declare in a bold and open way what their military policy was. The House should remember that this was a very important question. The Government had asked them to consider the whole Localization Scheme,
  824
  for which the country paid the large sum he had mentioned. Were they to understand that the Localization Scheme was a failure? If the right hon. Gentleman said it was, he entirely agreed with him. It had not in the least degree answered its purpose. To show that that was the case, he would lay before the House a picture of one Brigade Depôt, drawn from the most reliable authority, and which was a fair sample of many others, which, he thought, would help the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity of his undertaking the work of reconstruction. It appeared from a table which had been supplied to him that a considerable percentage of the men in the Brigade Depôt in question were for various reasons non-effective, some being under forfeiture of pay, and others undergoing imprisonment for military crimes. Fully 75 per cent of the defaulters were known to the police prior to enlistment. Another table showed that 30 per cent of the Depôt might be described as sick, lame, lazy, or useless. If that were a true picture of the Brigade Depôts, he would ask would not the House support the right hon. Gentleman in his desire to have a full investigation into this subject? But after he had completed that investigation, the House was entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state fully the intentions of the Government as to the future. They had here a small measure apparently; but it introduced changes of very great importance, and would tend to enormously increased expenditure. Two other Committees had been sitting at the War Office—one relative to the enlistment of boys, and the other on the subject of the retirement and promotion scheme. Before the House was asked to give any Vote with respect to those schemes it was entitled to the fullest information, and opportunity of discussion. He hoped, therefore, the House would support the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite.
  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 not desirable to bring under the provisions of the Mutiny Act any Militia officers, except officers belonging to regiments embodied for service or assembled for training, and such officers as are already specially provided for by sections 56 to 58 and 66 to 70

  825
  of the Militia Act of 1875 (38 and 39 Vic. c. 69),"—(Sir Alexander Gordon,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. STANLEYsaid, that before he proceeded to answer his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir Alexander Gordon) he hoped he might in all good humour be allowed to congratulate his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) on having at length delivered himself of his speech against Brigade Depôts, which some of them had anticipated hearing at an early period of the Session. How far that speech was connected with the question before the House, he did not think it necessary to discuss. He would only say that he did not see how, from a self-compounded table, from which the hon. Gentleman recited to his own satisfaction columns dividing the men into classes of lazy, useless, and so forth, they were to throw discredit on a system which the hon. Gentleman never lost an opportunity of attacking.
  MR. J. HOLMS: The hon. Gentleman can scarcely have caught what I said. The table is not self-compounded in any way whatever. It has come from the best possible sources.
  MR. STANLEYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman would allow him to say that the tables from which he had quoted contained divisions, such as lazy and incorrigible, which were not recognized in the Service; and in the absence of any authority for those tables he might perhaps be allowed to set his opinion against that of the hon. Gentleman's. As to the practical question before the House, he would endeavour to show that the dreadful consequences anticipated were not likely to follow from the proposal made. His hon. and gallant Friend complained—and the hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to agree with him—that no general announcement had been made in respect to the policy which was to be pursued with regard to the Report of the Committee as to Militia officers. Now, no one who had known the conduct of his right hon. Friend while he held the office of Secretary for War could think for a moment that he wished in the slightest degree to keep back information from the
  826
  House; and indeed, as he (Mr. Stanley) had before had the honour of explaining, the very incompleteness of the Report to which his hon. and gallant Friend had taken exception, arose from the fact that his right hon. Friend was anxious to lay it before the House as early as possible, though it was a Departmental document which did not strictly concern the House. After the Report was laid upon the Table on the first night of the Session, a slight delay arose as to its circulation, in consequence of a re-casting of the printing arrangements of the Appendices being found requisite, in order to bring them into harmony with other Parliamentary documents. A copy had been placed in the Library on the first night of the Session, and he thought he might quote a remark in illustration of the fact that there was no overpowering demand for intelligence on this subject. On asking the librarian whether he should like to have a few office copies of the Report, he replied that he should, but that no one at all had asked for it. He wished to impress upon the House that his right hon. Friend, so far from keeping back information, was anxious to take the earliest opportunity of explaining to the House his policy on the subject of Brigade Depôts. When the Militia Vote came on, that would be the proper occasion for doing so; and it was intended that a statement should be made by him (Mr. Stanley), as Chairman of the late Committee, as to those points in the Report of the Committee which were or were not to be carried out. His hon. and gallant Friend took exception to placing Militia officers under the Mutiny Act, and demurred generally to the opinion of the Committee. He should endeavour to disprove from the statements of the witnesses quoted by his hon. and gallant Friend, the deductions he had drawn from their evidence. It was true that three witnesses were asked the questions cited by his hon. and gallant Friend; but during the inquiry, it came prominently to the notice of the Committee, that according to the rules which they had found laid down by their Predecessors in office in actual practical working, the Militia and the Brigade Depôts were so inseparably mixed up that they found it was absolutely necessary to go one step further, and to recognize that for certain pur-

  827
  poses they were part and parcel of one unit. With regard to the first of the three witnesses who were asked as to the question of placing the officers under the Mutiny Act, he had followed his hon. and gallant Friend very closely in his quotations, and it seemed to him that he read it in an entirely opposite sense to that which it was intended to bear. Lord Norreys thought it would be advisable to place the Militia officers under the Mutiny Act at all times; that it would define their position better; that they would take no objection, it being understood that they could be on leave 11 months of the year. Another witness cited by his hon. and gallant Friend, Major Garnham, the cross-examination of whom was not directed to the main question, but to the minor question whether an officer should report himself to the general officer of the district, expressed himself strongly in favour of officers being placed at all times under the Mutiny Act, and a third witness, Sir Robert Cunliffe, said he thought it would be a good thing, and that there would be no objection on the part of the officers to being so placed. He feared that there was some feeling on the part of his hon. and gallant Friend that the status of the Militia officer might be unduly raised, and that in his remarks there was a trace of what he might call the old trades union jealousy between the officers of the Army and the Militia. [Sir ALEXANDER GORDON said, he entertained nothing of the kind.] He was glad to hear the disavowal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and had no doubt it would be agreeable to the Militia. With regard to the evidence given by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, he was very fully examined as to the working of the depôts, and he pointed out, that to expand the number of officers to the proportionate number of men would be a very great absorption of officers, and would lead to an undue promotion of the officers. Exception had been taken to the principles involved in the measure, and he was free to admit that the Report of the Committee pointed to an extension of the liabilities of those officers beyond what at present attached to them. The hon. Member for Hackney had said that the House was jealous of the state of the Army, and he went on to draw a terrible picture of the carelessness of the
  828
  Secretary of War with regard to the Estimates, and appeared to think that if the first year the officers should be placed under the Act, that the non-commissioned officers would be placed under the Act in the second, and that in the third year the men would be placed under the same Act. But the hon. Member for Hackney based his argument on the question where was to be the limit, for they might increase the Service indefinitely; but he must remember where the limit was at present. It was the officers alone who were included, and the right hon. Gentleman the Judge Advocate General would move a technical Amendment which would place this beyond a doubt. It was by the voluntary consent of the Militia officers that they were brought under the Mutiny Act, and any officers who chose came under this liability at present when they were attached to depôts and to regiments. The hon. Member asked what they wanted with all these things, and said it would be thought the Militia force was in a state of insubordination. He would ask the hon. Member whether he considered it right to wait until difficulties actually occurred, and it might be necessary to impose the Act, or did he not think it was a better and more proper course to see beforehand what the War Office and Parliament might wish to be done, and to take steps for carrying out such measures as they were shown to be wise and valuable? Both the hon. Member and his hon. and gallant Friend laid some stress upon objections which might be raised. With regard to the Report, he had seen many criticisms of it, but he had not seen one where exception had been taken to placing the Militia officers under the Mutiny Act, nor had he heard of one objection on the part of the Militia officers themselves. Weighing on the one hand the advantages which would accrue to the Service generally, and what was believed to be the well-founded opinion expressed by officers who were questioned on the subject, also taking into account the fact that no objection was taken to the proposal, the Committee felt justified in coming to the conclusion that it was desirable that Militia officers should be under the Mutiny Act not only during training, but also during the non-training period. The proposal was, in fact, one to place under the Mutiny Act officers who could already be brought

  829
  under it by their Volunteer Act, officers who entered the Service voluntarily and could quit it to-morrow. It was not proposed to repeal those clauses of the Militia Voluntary Enlistment Act which reserved all their civil rights, and he repeated that not one single objection had been raised among the whole body of these officers. In depôts it was absolutely essential for many reasons that Militia officers should be brought under closer relations and placed under the Mutiny Act. Before the year 1875 a militiaman could be tried by court martial for offences committed during the period of training, and officers were also liable to be tried for disobedience of orders. Again, accounts had to be made up, for which an officer was nominally responsible, and it was not found possible practically to bring to a conclusion at the moment when his liability ceased duties which he could only perform when brought under the Mutiny Act. He maintained, therefore, that during the non-training period a Militia officer must be treated as being on long leave, but as being, although practically from military duty, still liable to the rules of the Service. He had no doubt he should be able on a fitting occasion to explain the rules which, laid down by the military authorities, would, he believed, recommend themselves to those acquainted with the Service, and which could not, he thought, except by wilful misrepresentation, lead to any confusion as to the position of Militia officers. His hon. and gallant Friend had said that no question had been asked of any of the depôt officers, and it was quite true that it had not been deemed necessary to press them on hypothetical points, seeing that they only had a general knowledge of the subject; but all the evidence which had been obtained from them seemed to show more and more clearly how inexplicably the Militia and the Line were mixed up together in the performance of the duties of the Brigade Depôt. Under all the circumstances, the Committee thought they were best discharging their duty in making the recommendation in question. The Government, also, were of opinion that they would best discharge their duty by taking the course which they had adopted, and he trusted he had succeeded in removing some of the fears which his hon. and gallant Friend seemed to entertain on the subject.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSON,as a Militia officer, said, that no policy could be more constitutional than that of blending, as far as possible, the Militia with the Regular Army, while preserving the characteristics of the former ancient and constitutional force, of which the character would not be altered materially by the proposed change. The objections urged against the scheme were exaggerated; it could do no harm, and, in his opinion, would be productive of good; and, while advocated by all the authorities examined by the Committee, it was not opposed by a single Militia officer in the House. He supported the proposal, not as tending to raise the status of his brother officers, for their status was already sufficiently established, nor for the purpose of causing their position to be confounded with that of officers of the Regular Army, for Army, Militia, and Volunteers had each their own place in our national system of defence which they would continue to occupy without jealousy or contempt, one of another, ready at all times to serve their country in their proper spheres; but he supported the change as being convenient in the interests of discipline. The argument that it was inexpedient to bring Militia officers under the Mutiny Act, at times when they were not in the receipt of pay was neutralized by the fact that they held Her Majesty's commission, and were not only entitled, but obliged to wear Her Majesty's uniform on many occasions out of the training. The objection of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) should be taken cum grano salis, for he was an advocate of the abolition of the Militia. Militia candidates for commissions in the Army had to work very hard to pass a test examination, and to know their drill perfectly, and he believed that those who had obtained commissions had given satisfaction. The Force had immensely improved of late years. If deficiencies still existed, they could easily he removed; and, if the Militia were encouraged and treated well, it would amply repay the care bestowed upon it. The proposal under discussion was part of the recommendations of the Militia and Brigade Depôts Committee; and he believed that if the Militia officers throughout the country could be polled, it would be found that the great majority were in favour of it. If the Brigade

  831
  depôt system had not yet fully answered its purpose, it was only because it had not yet come fairly into operation; but he was sure that some day excellent results would attend it. He thanked the Secretary for War for the attention which he was paying to the Militia, and heartily supported him in his present course.
  EARL PERCYsaid, that the objections taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon), and by the hon. Member who seconded him (Mr. Holms), were entirely opposite. One said that the Militia officer's position would be improved; the other, that he would be subjected to serious penalties, capital punishment, and other disagreeable consequences. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had said that martial law depended on those who were subject to it being paid by the State. But Volunteers under arms were subject to it. He thought that if any real dissatisfaction existed in the Militia they would be certain to have heard of it, as the Militia was very much like the Army in grumbling at anything it did not like. He could not think, however, who the officers were who had written to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holms) on this subject, and made him the representative of their views. He was quite sure, however, that esprit de corps was not to be destroyed so easily as they seemed to think, nor did he believe that that was the natural tendency of the system.
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMANobserved that much had been said in this discussion which had no real bearing upon the point at issue, which was a very small one—namely, whether during the non-training period Militia officers should be subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act. He held that the proposal should be dealt with on its own merits. His hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment had criticized the report of the War Office Committee, whose inquiry had been directed with so much industry and ability by his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and he had endeavoured to prove that their recommendation in this respect was not based on sufficient evidence from Militia officers. But he would remind his hon. Friend of the composition of the Committee itself. There sat upon it the Duke of Buccleuch, Lord Exeter, Lord Limerick,
  832
  the hon. and gallant Member for Shropshire, and the Financial Secretary himself, who commanded a Militia regiment, and he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) questioned whether a more influential body of Militia officers than these could be named. But the House would not accept the proposal or reject it because it had or had not been recommended by any Committee. They would look at it on its merits, and there might, no doubt, be considerable difference of opinion on the subject. The advantages of placing Militia officers under the Mutiny Act were obvious, and by doing so they would get rid of many anomalies. There was, first of all, the fact that if they were not so placed the military authorities would have no control over them during the greater part of the year, since they had no power to take cognizance of their conduct during the whole of the period they were not in training. Again, Militia officers were often mixed up in the Brigade Depôt, in an awkward way, with officers who were already under the Mutiny Act; and, lastly, if they were not under the Mutiny Act, all correspondence with them which took place during the non-training period passed through the civilian department of the War Office, while during the short period of training it went to the Horse Guards. These were obvious anomalies and inconveniences which the House would see it must be desirable to remove. A Constitutional question indeed had been raised in relation to this subject, and he would admit that, perhaps, there might be something of that nature involved; but he might ask whether there was not such a thing as a pedantry of Constitutionalism, and whether hon. Members who had urged Constitutional considerations as being involved in this matter had not somewhat strained their point. He submitted that there was no evidence whatever either that there would be danger to the State in placing these officers under the Mutiny Act, or that the officers themselves had complained that their being so placed would interfere inconveniently or seriously with their personal liberty. That being so, the countervailing advantages which he had mentioned, as well as the expediency on general grounds of assimilating so far as they could the position of Militia officers to that of officers of the Regular Army,

  833
  were sufficient to justify the House in supporting the Government on the present occasion.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKsaid, as a Member of the Committee, he felt it would be his duty to oppose the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. The provision of the Bill, he thought, would raise the status of the whole body of the Militia, as officers would be very chary of their conduct when they knew they were liable to be tried and dealt with by court martial. The Committee had carefully guarded the rights of the non-commissioned officers. The objection to what was proposed to be done was a purely technical one, and the proposal itself was strongly supported by almost every Militia officer in the Kingdom. The position of an officer on full-pay was entirely different from that of an officer on half-pay in reference to the Mutiny Act, the former being under its provisions, and the latter not. The proposal under consideration had been brought forward for some time without evoking any complaint that he was aware of on the part of military officers, and he believed its adoption would be beneficial to the Army and the country.
  CAPTAIN NOLANpointed out, as an objection to the Government proposal, that it would place the Militia officer on a different footing from his brother officer of the Line, inasmuch as it would put him under the operation of military law when he was receiving no pay, which was quite contrary to the rule which obtained in all the Continental Armies. When a Line officer was absent on leave, he was not subject to military discipline, and he could take it out of the district. That was the rule in this country; but the Militia officer being always at home must take it in his district, and rubbing against other officers, he was not so free from restraint. This seemed to be hard upon him, as he had no pay; and it would be harder still to bring him under the operation of the Mutiny Act.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYthought the blot in the whole of the arguments which had been advanced against the proposed change was, that no account seemed to have been taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) of the great alteration which had been of late made in the Militia itself, which was no longer a county and
  834
  local Force, but formed part of the Regular Force of the United Kingdom. The commissions of Militia officers were now made out in the same form as for the Regular Army, and everything was being done to bring it into conformity with the Army. Regulations were laid down suitable for the Militia; but it was intended that the law should be equally enforced against them when necessity required that it should be so. He need not, however, after what had fallen from his hon. Friend beside him (Mr. Stanley), say anything further by way of explanation of the reasons which had induced the Government to introduce into the Bill the provisions on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment had, he thought, laid too much stress. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) seemed to think that he had sought to keep something back with regard to the Army. That was not at all the case. On the very first day of Parliament he laid before the House the Report of the Committee, and every effort had been made to supply the House with all the information, but the digest, which was in progress, had not been completed, but he hoped it would be in the hands of Members very soon. The hon. Member with his experience of the House must know that it was not in his power to command the time for discussion. He could only say that when the Army Estimates came on, or any other matter relating to the Army, he would be very happy to discuss them fully with the hon. Gentleman. At present he thought he would best consult the convenience of the House by allowing it to go into Committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: I was quite taken by surprise, Sir, at the proposal that the Speaker should leave the Chair, and the House go into Committee on this Bill. The Government surely cannot intend to go on. I have several times asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Gathorne

  835
  Hardy), at what time he proposed to take this Committee, and he has always said not after 11 or half-past 11. I must protest against this yearly attempt to cram this Bill down our throats as a thing which we have to accept and not to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman has again this Session attempted to force a second reading before the Bill was printed, and I shall certainly divide the House against the proposal that we shall go further to-night.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYdenied altogether that he was cramming the Bill down the throat of the House. The Bill had been printed last year for the first time. As the hon. Member had said, he had said he would not bring on the Bill after a certain hour, and as far as was in his power he had kept his word. He hoped, therefore, they would be allowed to go on.
  MR. P. A. TAYLOR: If I used any expression stronger than was warranted by the facts, I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am aware he at once gave way last year when I objected to the Bill being read a second time before it was printed, and I should have thought that would have been a precedent for this year. But there are matters of detail connected with this Mutiny Bill, which excite considerable interest in the House and in the country, and I beg to remind the right hon. Gentleman that minorities have their rights as well as majorities, and that we ought not to be asked to discuss matters of this importance at 1 o'clock in the morning, when all power of appeal through the Reporting Gallery to the country is gone. I beg to move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. P. A. Taylor.)
  MR. BIGGARalso objected to the right hon. Gentleman pressing his Mutiny Bill at that late hour.
  MR. PARNELLwas proceeding to speak on the same side, when—
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYrose, and said he would agree to the Motion. He would not contest it, nor engage the House in a contest at that late hour on this question; but he hoped that on another evening he would be allowed to
  836
  proceed, even though at a rather late hour.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 1) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Barremman (Gareloch), Brixham, Hornsea (North), Hornsea (South), Lynmouth, Rosslare, Ryde, and Towyn.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. EDWARD STANHOPE and Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 125.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HORBURY, &C.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government Districts of Horbury, Hyde, Luton, and Skipton, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 126.]

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CALLAN, Bill to amend the Law relating to cases of Summary Jurisdiction in Ireland, and the Prevention of offences under "The Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871," ordered to be brought in by Mr. CALLAN, Mr. DOWNING, Mr. PATRICK MARTIN, and Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY.
  Bill presented,and read the first time. [Bill 127.]
  House adjourned at quarter after One o'clock.