Sitting of 10 August 1877

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Sir Baldwyn Leighton, baronet, for the Southern Division of the County of Salop.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) [No. 411.]
PUBLIC BILLS — Second Reading — Destructive Insects [281].
Committee—Report—Expiring Laws Continuance *[272]; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Local Taxation (Returns) [220]; Municipal Corporations (New Charters) [244].
Considered as amended—Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment*[148].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Turnpike Acts Continuance [204]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Atherton, &c.) *[279], and passed.
Third Reading—Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment *[264] [House counted out].
Withdrawn—Criminal Law Practice Amendment (re-comm.) *[245].

QUESTIONS.

  INLAND REVENUE — ORGANIZATION OF DEPARTMENTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRIGGSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the reorganization of the offices of Inland Revenue has been completed; and, if not, how many offices or departments are still under consideration, and when the schemes for the re-organization of these offices or departments are likely to be completed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he believed the only large department of the Inland Revenue which was still under consideration was the Legacy and Successions Duty Office. He was told that the revision of that office would be completed before the next Estimates were laid on the Table.

  JUDICATURE ACT—SITTINGS OF THE JUDGES.—QUESTION.
  MR. SCOTT (for Mr. GREGORY)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused by the uncertainty of the sittings of the Judges of the Queen's Bench, Exchequer, and Common Pleas Divisions of the High Court and the difficulty of ascertaining where such Judges will sit from day to day; and, whether he will consider, during the vacation, whether any and what regulations can be made to obviate such inconvenience?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had no power in the matter; but he was informed that it was under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor and the Judges, who were prepared to consider what steps it might be necessary to take to avoid inconvenience in the future.

FAMINE PROSPECTS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will be good enough to inform the House the nature of the information received by Her Majesty's Government relative to the prospects of the coming season's crops in the Madras and other Provinces, and also what arrangements are being made to employ the Native populations of the famine districts in the construction of permanent and temporary works calculated to increase the water supply of the country?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the latest information which has been received by Her Majesty's Government concerning the prospects of this year's crops in India was contained in the telegram which was published in the morning newspapers some few days ago. It conveyed a more favourable account of the state of affairs throughout India,
  748
  and I hope now that there is good reason for believing that there will not be, except in Madras and Mysore, any scarcity of the food supply. As regards Madras and Mysore, I am afraid there is very strong reason for believing that distress will continue for some months longer. Several Blue Books have been laid upon the Table relating to the arrangements which have been made for the employment of the Native population. The relief works on which they are employed may be divided into two classes—first, those beneficially affecting the districts or villages in which they are constructed; and, secondly, the larger works of general public utility. The Viceroy proposes to visit Madras on the 16th of this month, and although I am afraid there will be much privation and much suffering, yet the House may rest assured that Her Majesty's Government will spare no pains to mitigate, as far as they can, the sufferings of the inhabitants of the districts in question.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — " THE PRIEST IN ABSOLUTION."

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any steps have been taken by his Department to protect education, so far as it may be under its control or influence, against the Confessional practices and doctrines set forth in the book called "The Priest in Absolution," for children ranging from five years of age and upwards; and, if so, that he will be good enough to state what steps have been taken for that purpose?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I answered very fully a Question of the same character which was put by the hon. Member on the 26th of June last; but the subject itself is so important, and naturally excites so much general interest, that I do not think I ought on that ground to decline to answer the present Question. I understand the Question to refer to schools in connection with the Church of England, and I cannot but imagine that the unanimous opinion expressed by the Bench of Bishops in the Upper House of Convocation in condemnation of the practices to which he alludes will prevent their being carried out in the schools in connection with the Established Church. Should that, un-

  749
  happily, not be the case, I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Time Table Conscience Clause of the Act of 1870 gives the parent of a child full protection against his child receiving any religious instruction or attending any religious observances to which he objects, and also that, by the Education Act of last year, we made it the duty of the school authority, which now exists in every part of the country, to report to us any infraction of that Conscience Clause. I need hardly add that if such infraction was continued, we should at once refuse to give the Government grant. Beyond this, we have no legal power to interfere with the religious opinions or practices of the managers of board schools, or voluntary public elementary schools, be they Church of England, Nonconformist, or Roman Catholic.

NAVY—PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT IN THE ROYAL MARINES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Departmental Committee, which he informed the House nearly two months ago was sitting four days a week on the question of promotion and retirement in the Royal Marines, has yet completed its labours and reported; and, if, before the close of the Session, he can give any information as to what is to be done, or how soon the officers of that service may expect a decision?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON, in reply, said, he had good reason to believe that the Report to which the hon. Member referred would be laid upon the Table before the House separated for the Recess. He would remind the hon. Member that the Government had taken a sum of £6,000 in the Estimates this year for carrying out a scheme; and he had no doubt that his hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), who had accepted the office of First Lord of the Admiralty, would at once consider the details, in order that the scheme should be applied as soon as possible.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR— BRITISH INTERESTS — THE OCCUPATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONKasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's
  750
  Government would consider the temporary occupation of Constantinople by Russian troops so far inconsistent with British interests as to disturb the relations of amity between England and Russia?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say, on behalf of the Government, that I feel it my duty not to answer this Question.
  MR. MONK: In consequence of the reply which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that on going into Committee on the Appropriation Bill, I shall raise the question in another form.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS IN THE METROPOLIS.—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will object to lay upon the Table of the House, a Return of the number of Coroners' Inquests held within the Metropolitan Police District, in each year from January 1st 1867, to the present date, of which the verdicts have been wilful murder against certain persons; wilful murder against persons unknown; found dead; found drowned, and of not sufficient evidence of the cause of death; also, in columns parallel to the above, a Return of the number of persons tried in consequence of the above verdicts, or sent for trial by magistrates in the cases enumerated; giving the number of convictions and acquittals?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he should have no objection to lay substantially the Return asked for on the Table; but he should like to arrange the precise data with the hon. and gallant Member, and if he would communicate his wishes to his hon. Friend and Colleague the Under Secretary of State, no doubt the matter could be arranged.

PARLIAMENT — ORDER — MR. WHALLEY.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. WHALLEY: I rise, Sir, to make a personal explanation in reference to what passed in this House yesterday, and I beg to say that I had no intention of disregarding your authority either on the first or the second of the two occasions on which I was called to Order,

  751
  and on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his Motion. In support of this disclaimer, I would ask leave to refer to the circumstances, which I think will show that, though your ruling me out of Order must be held to be right, and to which neither on the first nor the second occasion did I make the slightest comment or objection, yet neither on the first occasion nor the second could I be reasonably supposed to be aware that I was out of Order, still less that I was disregarding the authority of the Chair. On the first occasion I was speaking on a Motion for Adjournment, and you said, Sir, that the Question raised by me related to a matter on which I had twice previously put a Question in the House, and that upon a third occasion, when I desired to put a Question to the same effect, you ruled me out of Order, and you added that I was again repeating this breach of Order in attempting to raise that Question before the House. The Question to which I understood you to refer as having been twice put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, whether Her Majesty's Government had not separated itself from the other Powers of Europe. I submit with confidence that I could not have anticipated your ruling, Sir, on that point. I had put that Question twice, without receiving any definite reply, and I was stating that fact upon the Motion for Adjournment. In reference to your remark that on a third occasion I put the Question, and was ruled out of Order, I was not aware of that fact, otherwise than that a Question which I intended to put to the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon), which had been printed in the Proceedings of this House, and as to which I had received a letter from the noble Lord, was without my knowledge withdrawn from the Paper. That Question was not the same as my Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inasmuch as the noble Lord having stated that other European Powers had concurred with Her Majesty's Government in their views as to Russia, I proposed to ask what Powers had so concurred, other than that of the Vatican. Thus called to Order for the first time, I rose again, and asked whether I might be permitted to express my views in the form of a statement in the following words:—
  " Then I will not put the Question, but I will) if I am permitted to do so, take this opportunity
  752
  of making a statement in regard to this hostility —a kind of personal hostility—on the part of the Government towards the Emperor of Russia,"
  whereupon you rose and said—
  "I am compelled to call the hon. Member to Order a second time, and to pronounce him as having again disregarded the authority of the Chair."
  Again, Sir, I respectfully submit that although your ruling was and is open to no comment of objection, either then or now, yet your words imply an intentional and deliberate disregard of your authority. The circumstances show that it was wholly unintentional and unavoidable. All that I did was to ask permission to make a statement, thus showing that, strong as was my desire to make such statement, I awaited your permission to do so. You, Sir, not only withheld that permission, but declared me to be out of Order for asking it. Whether upon the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I was, or was not, entitled to speak, I felt it to be my duty to call attention to a Motion which may come on hereafter. That is a question on which I do not presume now to speak; but on this matter of personal explanation, I trust I have not exceeded the privilege usually exercised by hon. Members in thus disclaiming any intention to disregard your authority, and giving reasons why I could not, in fact, have entertained any such intention.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE.

  WITHDRAWAL OF AN OFFENSIVE WORD.
  MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps by the indulgence of the House I may be allowed to mention a matter of which I have given formal Notice for Monday—I allude to the subject which I mentioned the other day as one of Privilege. I have this morning received a letter from the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), which in my judgment, and, I hope, in the judgment of the House, will render it unnecessary to attach any more serious importance to the subject than that of the hon. and gallant Member having made a statement which he withdraws. Perhaps I may be allowed to read the note which I have received from the hon. and gallant Gentleman—
  "Logie Elphinstone, August 9.
  "Dear Sir,—I am indebted to a friend for pointing out a copy of a letter published in a local paper which, it appears, you have addressed to me. The original has not reached me; but I lose no time in thanking you for your kindness and courtesy in deferring action upon the Notice you have given in order to suit my convenience. As the matter has assumed the aspect of a breach of Privilege, I have sent a letter to a friend, who will read it to the House, in which I withdraw the word ' ruffians,' and I express my regret that I should have applied it to Members of the House."
  I wish, Sir, to say that, having received this note, so frank and so honourable to the hon. and gallant Member himself, I instantly decided, with your permission, not to proceed with my formal Notice of Motion, and I can say on my own behalf—and though I am not authorized to speak for the hon. Gentlemen around me I am quite sure I may say on theirs —that they most frankly accept the gentlemanlike apology which has been tendered by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, whether I ought not to read a letter which has been addressed to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portsmouth, with a request that I would read it in the House. He says—
  "Logie Elphinstone, August 9.
  "My dear Sir Stafford Northcote,—I understand that Mr. Sullivan has given Notice that he will call attention on Friday next to certain passages in a speech I made at the meeting of the Garioch Farmers' Club last Saturday. I also hear that Mr. Speaker has ruled that the word ' ruffian' which I made use of on that occasion is a breach of the privileges of the House. This being so, I beg you will offer my apology to Mr. Speaker and the House for this infringement of its Rules, and I beg that the House will permit me to withdraw the offensive expression, which, on consideration, I regret having made use of or applied to Members of the House.—I remain, yours very faithfully,
  "J. D. H. ELPHINSTONE."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  (Mr. Salt, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
    [BILL 204.] CONSIDERATION.

      THIRD READING.
      Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
      DR. CAMERON, who had a Notice on the Paper to move that the Bill be taken into Consideration that day three months, said, that he did not consider it advisable, after the previous evening's discussion, to occupy the time of the House; but he would take the opportunity of the Motion being on the Paper to assure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that in future Sessions if the Roads and Bridges question should not be settled, a number of Scotch Members would oppose this Bill in the most determined manner, and protest against the continuance of every Scotch Act included in it, without proper investigation. He would also like to lay before the right hon. Gentleman one suggestion with regard to next year's Roads and Bridges Bill. A modification should be made on the measure, so far as the optional time for the duration of turnpikes was concerned. Ten years was far too long a period. By fighting the expiring Acts, Scotch Members themselves, without the aid of the Government, could succeed in abolishing tolls long before the date in the Roads and Bridges Bill. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reduce the time allowed for carrying out the Act to something like a reasonable period. In order that the right hon. Gentleman might address the House on the subject, if he wished, he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice pro formâ.
      MR. M'LARENseconded the Motion.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Dr. Cameron.)
      Question proposed, " That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I am glad my hon. Friend has taken the course he has in only moving his Amendment pro formâ, and I can assure him of this —which I hope will satisfy him as to the intentions of the Government—that it would be quite impossible for the Scotch turnpikes to be continued year by year on the footing on which they have remained for the last few years. I am not at all sorry to have the opportunity of giving a warning to all parties concerned, that they must not expect that the Bill will be continued for the

      755
      future. Some settlement must be arrived at. If by any misfortune, which I do not at the present moment anticipate, legislation should be prevented in the course of another year, all these Turnpike Acts will have to be continued only after the greatest possible investigation and a proper understanding upon them. The expiring English Turnpike Acts are subjected to minute inquiry in each particular case. There is no reason why the Scotch Acts should not be treated in the same way. The Bills will not be continued in the way they have been done, as a matter of course. I look upon this Bill as practically a temporary Act, because it is the intention of the Government to press forward the Roads and Bridges Bill another year. I hope the statement I have just made will be satisfactory.
      MR. E. JENKINSasked, what reply the right hon. Gentleman had to make as to the hon. Member for Glasgow's suggestion concerning the 10 years?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I will consider the subject.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Main Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill, as amended, considered,; read the third time, and passed.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
      (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir William Dyke.)
      CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

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

        AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' DWELLINGS (IRELAND).—OBSERVATIONS.
        MR. CALLANrose to call attention to the condition and state of the Dwellings of the Agricultural Labourers in Ireland, and the obstruction to and difficulties placed in the way of carrying out loans for purposes authorized by the Legislature by the Board of Public Works, Ireland. The hon. Member read extracts from evidence given by Mr. William O'Reilly, father of the hon. Member for Longford, describing the wretched dwellings of the labourers in the county of Louth, from that of Mr. Smith as to
        756
        those residing in the county of Limerick, where he alleged no people in the world were treated with greater severity, and of Mr. Kinkaird, an extensive land agent, to the same effect. He reminded the House that the Devon Commission sat in 1843, and examined 200 witnesses; that that Commission described the agricultural labourers as "badly fed, badly clothed, and badly housed," and yet nothing was done to effect an improvement from that hour to the present. The House had allowed 16 years to elapse —namely, between 1844 and 1860—before they took any action on the Report of the Devon Commission. They shortly afterwards, by the hands of Sir William Somerville, Chief Secretary for Ireland, brought in a Bill, and passed an Act by which grants might be made to Irish landlords for the improvement of the labourers' dwellings on their properties; but that concession was hampered with so many restrictions by the Board of Works in Ireland that the Act virtually became a dead letter. After the passing of that Act, Mr. Henry Coulter, who was regarded as an un-impeached and an unimpeachable authority, was sent as a special commissioner for Saunders's News Letter, a Conservative journal, and one of the oldest in the United Kingdom, to investigate the whole subject, and he said that he never saw more wretched, miserable hovels; that the windows were generally without glass, but stuffed with straw, and on the whole constituted a picture of the utmost wretchedness and poverty. So things remained until the introduction of the Land Act in 1870, into which a clause was introduced which would have the effect of giving some relief, but it was struck out by the House of Lords. The then Chief Secretary for Ireland, now Lord Carlingford, promised to bring in a Bill during the following Session to remedy the evil thus created, but he was removed to another office, and succeeded by the noble Marquess now the Leader of the Opposition. In 1872 that noble Lord promised to bring in a Bill to improve the Labourers' Dwellings in Ireland, but he did not do so. The hon. Member continued to read numerous extracts to show that there was a large class of persons in Ireland who were badly fed, clothed, and housed, and he complained that, notwithstanding the numerous promises which successive Go-

        757
        vernments had made on the subject, no legislative steps had been taken to improve the miserable condition of those unfortunate people. One writer—a Government official—said the habitations —he could not call them houses—were a disgrace to Christianity and a civilized community; and the whole of the evidence showed that the condition of the agricultural labourers was deteriorating, instead of improving, and this was due to a great entent to the miserable cabins in which they had to live. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), the Chief Secretary for Ireland last Session made a statement which led many hon. Members to believe that steps would be taken to remedy the state of the dwellings, but the condition of those habitations were as bad now as at the date when the Report of the Devon Commission was made. Nothing would give so much satisfaction in Ireland as the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of labourers' dwellings, and to devise a remedy on the subject, and he hoped the Chief Secretary for Ireland would not object to the issue of such a Commission.
        SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHadmitted the great importance of the subject which the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) had brought under the attention of the House; but he was sure that hon. Member would himself be prepared to admit its difficulties, for he had made no suggestion for improving the present system, or removing the evils of which he complained. The condition of labourers' dwellings in Ireland was, no doubt, far from satisfactory. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was, however, justified in repeating the observations he made last year, that during the last few years there had. been improvements in Ireland as in other parts of the Kingdom. In many parts of the country, as he had himself seen, mud huts had been replaced by comfortable cottages, built not merely for ornamental lodges or model farms, but for really practical purposes. The hon. Member had suggested that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into the subject, or that the Commission upon the amalgamation of Unions and Workhouses should be empowered to extend the scope of their inquiry in this direction; but there had already been
        758
        endless inquiries into the condition of labourers' dwellings by persons in various positions, and the hon. Member had quoted from the Reports of Commissioners and Inspectors of various dates. He was not of opinion that the result of any such inquiry as that proposed would supply any more information than had been collected, or would be likely to lead to any valuable suggestions. There were two modes in which at present they endeavoured to promote the erection or improvement of labourers' dwellings in Ireland. In the first place, they did so under the Sanitary Laws. The Public Health Acts had been referred to, and, as the House knew, he had proposed the consolidation of these Acts, adding, at the same time, some fresh provisions, to vest in local authorities in rural districts powers, with regard to houses unfit for human habitation, now exercised by town authorities. He was sorry to say that he had not been successful in carrying this measure through; but no facts had been brought under his notice to show that the power of the town authorities in this matter had been unfairly exercised. In some instances, perhaps, they had not interfered where they might have done so with benefit; and the evidence lately given before the Local Government and Taxation in Ireland Committee caused him to believe that if the powers vested in the sanitary authorities were more exercised great advantage would be conferred not only in respect of labourers' dwellings, but also of the general health of the localities. The other means by which Parliament had endeavoured to promote improvement was by an Act which applied to Ireland alone, and not to England and Scotland. By that Act landlords could obtain loans on favourable terms for the erection of labourers' dwellings. These loans were repayable in 22 years by an annual payment of 6½ per cent. The hon. Member for Dundalk said that that Act had failed, and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) agreed it had not been so successful as might be desired, but still it had been utilized to a great extent. The last Report of the Board of Works gave the full number of these loans sanctioned since the passing of the Act as 345, the sum lent being £197,090. That was not a very large total amount; but it was of importance to the subject with which they were dealing, to point

        759
        out that during the last year £32,100 had been granted out of the total, which was a marked progress as compared with former years. The hon. Member had spoken of obstacles thrown in the way of loans by the Board of Works. If their precise character were brought under the notice of the Government, inquiry should be made into them, for he was anxious to make the Act as valuable as possible. His hon. Friend, who had lately been promoted to a high post (Mr. W. H. Smith), undertook that an inquiry should be directed into the organization and working of the Board of Works; and, of course, it would come within the scope of that inquiry to ascertain in what way the powers of the Board of Works under the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Acts had been exercised. He felt sure that any difficulties the hon. Member for Dundalk brought under notice, or any change that could be made consistently with security for the erection of proper dwellings and the repayment of the loans, would be considered. He did not see in what other way, besides these two methods to which he had referred, the House could promote the erection of labourers' dwellings in Ireland. It could do no more than stimulate and assist that private action to which the subject must mainly be left, and enable the local authorities to prohibit the use of bad dwellings. It was not alone in Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom, that they were met in this matter by the great practical difficulty that the rent which labourers could afford to pay would not cover the cost of erecting good cottages. To meet the difficulty, the Act was passed to enable landlords to build cottages more cheaply, and it did meet the difficulty to some extent. More than that Government could not do; but if the hon. Member would bring to his notice the precise nature of the obstacles alluded to, he would do all in his power to promote the proper action of the law.
        DR. WARDsaid, that the Sanitary Acts had been to a great degree inoperative, principally because when dwellings were demolished for sanitary purposes the owners did not replace them by others. As the Chief Secretary desired suggestions, he would propose that in any amendment of the Sanitary Laws the local authority should have the authority to erect a new dwelling when an
        760
        old one was condemned and demolished. He should say that, on the whole, he was satisfied with the assurance that a Committee of the Board of Works would go into the question of labourers' dwellings.

      RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE WAR—BRITISH INTERESTS — THE OCCUPATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

        OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
        MR. MONKsaid, he regretted very much that the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declined to answer his Question with reference to the supposition whether, in the event of the occupation of Constantinople by the Russians, it was probable that the friendly relations between England and Russia would be disturbed, made it necessary that he should trespass for a few minutes on the attention of the House. He understood that, in consequence of an agreement come to by the two Front benches, there was to be no debate on the Eastern Question before the Prorogation of Parliament. He regretted that decision very much, but he and others acquiesced in it. He thought, however, that he was entitled to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which was very closely connected with the despatches of Lord Derby and Prince Gortchakoff in May last. That question was—Whether Her Majesty's Government would consider the temporary occupation of Constantinople by Russian troops so far inconsistent with British interests as to disturb the relations of amity between England and Russia? He thought he was justified in putting that Question, because Prince Gortchakoff in his letter of May 30 to Lord Derby, said that the acquisition of Constantinople was excluded from the views of His Majesty the Emperor of Russia, and that being the case, it would be satisfactory to the House and the country to know whether Her Majesty's Government, having received that assurance, had that confidence in the Emperor's words that they would not think it necessary to interfere or risk any breach of neutrality, if the Army of the Emperor, by force of circumstances, or by the fortunes of war, were to take possession temporarily of Constantinople. He had not the slightest desire to take any step

        761
        which would in any way embarrass Her Majesty's Government or the country in this matter; but still he thought that it would be advantageous to the country to know, before the House separated, what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the invasion of Turkey by Russia, and whether they considered that the temporary occupation of Constantinople would so far interfere with British interests as to necessitate our going to war with Russia. Lord Derby had said that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to see Constantinople go into other hands than those of its present possessors, and undoubtedly there were serious objections to that city passing into the hands of any of the other European Powers; but when we had been told that the acquisition of Constantinople was excluded from the views of the Emperor of Russia, and that the future of that city was a question on which all the European Powers were interested, and would have to be consulted, he did not know what further assurance was necessary. But then it was said that British interests might be interfered with in regard to the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. It must be remembered, however, that Prince Gortchakoff had said that there must be a common agreement between the Powers in the interests of peace, and with a view to the general balance of power in Europe, in regard to the Straits. It might be said, again, and undoubtedly with truth, that the Russians were not at that moment on their way to Constantinople, and that there was no immediate necessity for replying to the question which he had put to the Government; but still we knew what the uncertainty of war was, and it was by no means either impossible or improbable that in the course of the autumn the Russian troops might find their way to Constantinople, an event which many hon. Members might consider very undesirable. For his own part, he looked upon such an occupation as desirable, as a necessary preliminary to a permanent peace and to a satisfactory solution of the Eastern Question. He did not desire to raise any debate on the question; but he had thought it his duty, for the reasons already indicated, to bring the matter before the House. He did not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would think fit to give
        762
        him any further reply to the Question than had already been given; but he wished for his own part, and speaking only for himself, to enter his protest against this country being drawn into a war with Russia in the event of Russia taking temporary possession of Constantinople. He felt quite sure that this country did not desire that a single soldier or a single ship of war should be sent out to prevent such an occupation taking place. The events of this war no one could foretell, but one observation he would venture to make—that the downfall of the Ottoman Empire was generally regarded as an event that was not far distant, and one which no effort on the part of England could long avert. He thought it therefore desirable before the close of the Session, that the Government should state to the House what were the views which they entertained in reference to the possible event of the Russian Army taking temporary possession of Constantinople.
        SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that he did not at all question the right of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Monk) to put this Question. He had, as they all knew, a perfect right to take that course. But he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) maintained that the Government also had a right in the matter, and that was to maintain the course they had pursued in declining to answer the Question put to them. He, for one, thought the discretion of the Government might have been open to question had they answered it. But whilst he thought the hon. Member was perfectly justified in putting his Question, he thought he had gone rather further than he intended in discussing the general question of Eastern politics, and further than it was desirable to go after the appeal made by the Government that any general discussion of the subject might be avoided. He would give no opinion on the point, nor did he think it would be advisable for Her Majesty's Government to do so, for it appeared to be the general feeling of that, as well as of the other House, that it was desirable, at the present crisis, to avoid any general discussion of this subject, and that it would be inconvenient, while it might also be very dangerous, to enter on such a debate. Lord Palmerston always observed a sound rule on such occasions. His invariable reply was

        763
        that he declined to answer hypothetical questions. The present was a hypothetical question. The Russians, let him observe, were not yet at Constantinople; we did not know whether they would ever get there; and we did not even know whether they really wanted to get there at all. It was difficult to define what a temporary occupation was. Occupations which had at first appeared to be only temporary had eventually proved to be permanent. An occupation could be said to be temporary only when it had ceased. They had several instances in the history of recent years. Austria temporarily occupied Tuscany, France temporarily occupied Rome, the united forces of England and France temporarily occupied Athens, and France temporarily occupied Syria. Well, they knew that in more than one instance the great difficulty had always been to bring to a close occupations originally announced as intended to be of short duration. But passing from that, he thought the great danger and difficulty incurred by the Government in answering any such Question as that addressed to them by the hon. Member for Gloucester was chiefly this — that in their answer they must give encouragement either to the one belligerent or the other. If the British Government were to say they could not look upon the occupation as justifying a breach of amity with Russia, that would encourage Russia in a course which our Government might or might not approve. If they were, on the other hand, to say the occupation would lead to serious consequences, that might encourage the Turks to pursue a course which we might not approve, and perhaps to reject terms of peace which otherwise might be accepted by them. Under the circumstances, therefore, he thought the House would consider that the Government was exercising a wise discretion in not committing themselves by giving any answer with reference to contingencies which had not arisen, and which might never arise.
        SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I quite agree that the Government are exercising a wise discretion in not going into the general question at the present time. A great war is raging between two great Powers, and no one can tell exactly what circumstances may arise. I have always been of opinion that
        764
        Russia must prevail against Turkey, because no Oriental Power has yet been able to cope successfully with any European Army; and, although we hear of great Turkish successes, still in the end we cannot expect Turkey to be triumphant. One of the most dangerous things is to have bad generals opposed to you, because it leads you to make tremendous blunders. That is what has taken place in this instance in regard to Russia; and, no doubt, the Armenian campaign was a mistake. In the end, however, in all probability, Russia will overrun Turkey, and possibly the Russian troops may go to Constantinople. Although, for my part, I regret this war, which must cause great loss of life and other evils, still, if Russia acts wisely and prudently, it may lead to a solution of the Eastern Question. Many have from the first believed that that question never would be permanently solved without a war, owing to the evident discord between the parties interested. Possibly, if Russia takes the advice of her Allies, and the European Powers generally, and does not proceed to such extremities as would imperil the peace of Europe, then, even if her troops did take possession to some extent of Constantinople, it would, perhaps, be done under such assurances to England and the other Powers as would remove any danger of a general conflagration, because I believe Russia would have the prudence to avoid any step likely to lead to a European combination against her. Certainly, Austria would not like to see Russia in permanent occupation of Constantinople any more than we should. All these things lead me to the conclusion that the best course to take is to leave matters as they stand, and for this country to persevere in that strict neutrality which has commended itself to the common sense of the nation, and to avoid anything that would give encouragement to one side or the other. It is be regretted that that course has not been pursued from the beginning, and I believe that abstention from Parliamentary discussion will be favourable to a peaceful solution of the question.
        MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of continuing this discussion, because, although it is quite clear that the subject is one in which the House is intensely interested,

        765
        yet, just because they do feel such intense interest in it, they are not, I think, of opinion that this is a time when we can conveniently proceed with such a discussion. I should not have risen to address the House at all but for some remarks which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) made at the beginning of his speech, when he appeared to assume that there was some arrangement or understanding between the front Opposition bench and the Government, that there should be no discussion on the subject at this stage of the proceedings of the House. I am sorry that my noble Friend the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) is not present; but I think I may say for him that there has been no understanding or arrangement of the kind referred to. But the hon. Member, in common with the House, is perfectly aware that the Leaders of both Houses have thought it right, representing the Government, to deprecate discussion on this subject at present, stating that they believed it would be disadvantageous to the interests which are so deeply involved in the question. Having heard that statement, and recognizing the very great responsibility of the Government in making it, my noble Friend and those who generally act with him have thought it right not to initiate discussion. At the same time, I do not suppose that the Government need to be reminded of the very great responsibility which they have undertaken towards the country in allowing Parliament to separate, or rather in desiring Parliament to separate, without affording further or special information with regard to the present very critical position of this matter. I may perhaps be allowed to say, speaking for myself, and I believe for others also, that we should not have assented to that course had we had reason to fear that the Government were likely between now and the reopening of Parliament to drag this country into war, or to involve us in any breach of neutrality. We have most carefully considered everything that has been both written and said by the Government in this matter, and, looking at the last despatches and the declarations of the Government, we feel convinced that they mean to abide by a policy of strict neutrality; and that being the case, we do not feel that it is necessary
        766
        to do more than remind them of the responsibility under which they lie. As regards the particular Question asked by my hon. Friend, I cannot be surprised at his asking it, although if he had consulted me I think I should have advised him not to press it at this particular moment, because I think it is a question which the Government cannot fairly be expected to answer now. The answer might be misconstrued on either side by the belligerents—either as an encouragement to continue hostilities, or as a breach of neutrality. If the Government stated that the temporary occupation of Constantinople would be an act against which they would not protest, that would be something like a hint to Russia to go to Constantinople. On the other hand, I cannot imagine the Government for a moment making such a statement as that the occupation of Constantinople by Russia would be a hostile act, because that would be necessarily a breach of neutrality. When two countries are at war, the fortunes of war must in a measure decide the position of the two combatants, and no doubt it would be a breach of neutrality for us to inform Russia that, notwithstanding she was at war with Turkey and had been successful, yet she should not be allowed to take the same advantage over Turkey in reference to Constantinople as Germany took over France in reference to Paris. In my opinion, I consider that such a course would be a breach of neutrality, and therefore I cannot expect that the Government will either assent to or approve any answer being given to the Question of my hon. Friend, and I trust he will be content with having brought the matter forward without pressing the question.
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise, Sir, chiefly for two purposes—in the first place, to express a hope that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) will not consider that there was any want of personal courtesy implied in the answer I was obliged to give him at an earlier stage of the evening; and secondly, to bear out what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Forster), that there has been no kind of understanding between ourselves and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the course which should be taken at the present time. It was, of course, entirely open to them, as

        767
        to all other Members of the House, to take any course they might think it their duty to take in the matter; and we certainly should have had no right to complain of any hon. Member thinking it right to raise this question in the House. On the other hand, we do think it our duty to express on our part our strong sense of the inexpediency at the present time of raising a general discussion on the question. We are at the same time sensible of the kindness and forbearance of hon. Members, and of the confidence reposed in us by the House in this matter, after the appeal which was made to them on behalf of the Government; and I can only repeat that we still are convinced that it is for the true interests of the country that at the present time we should be as reticent as possible. I will only say this with regard to the policy of the Government which was declared some time ago—that since that declaration was made, the Government have not seen any reason to depart from the line of policy which they then announced. I think that the particular despatch to which reference has been made—the despatch addressed by Lord Derby to the Russian Ambassador—was a despatch which was unusually full, detailed, and frank in its declarations, and it was responded to in a spirit which, I think, leaves no reason whatever to complain of the tone of the Russian Government; and we have no reason whatever to doubt the propriety of the course which we took in regard to that despatch. But, under the circumstances, I think it would be very injurious, and might be exceedingly mischievous, if we were to go into details upon every question that might be submitted to us on a subject of this kind—upon every hypothetical question as to what we should do in this or that case, or how we should regard the matter. I think that the few words so well said by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) really hit the point of the case in regard to the position of the Government, and that we cannot do better than fall back upon the expression of Lord Palmerston, and say that we cannot answer questions of a hypothetical character in reference to such grave matters as that presently before us. There have been times in which hasty and casual expressions have been caught up, and made the foundation for action and ex-
        768
        pectations which after all have been misunderstood and have led to subsequent misapprehension and disappointment; and the anxiety of Her Majesty's Government in this matter is to pursue a plain, honest, and frank line of policy, and at the same time a prudent and reserved one. I hope the House will feel that that is the spirit in which we have acted. But it may be said—"You ought to take the House into your confidence." We do wish to give the House the fullest information on every point; and that would be all very well, if we could take Parliament alone into our confidence; but remembering that everything we say here is reported all over the world, we are obliged to be very careful and very chary of the words which we use. I hope the House will act up to what I understood to be its feeling yesterday, and will not think it desirable to go into a discussion of this question.
        DR. KENEALY: I cannot allow the discussion to close without objecting to the sentiment that we could regard with indifference the occupation of Constantinople by Russia, whether temporary or otherwise. I believe that the occupation of that great city for one week by Russia would raise such a flame in this country as would not be easily allayed. Knowing the feelings of the people, I am convinced that the occupation of Constantinople cannot be contemplated seriously by any patriotic Englishman for five minutes. I sincerely hope that if any such thing should come to pass, this present Ministry will lose not a single moment in taking that course which the country calls upon them to do, and which I believe the country will heartily and valiantly support them in doing.
        MR. CHARLEY: I think it right to call the attention of the House to the fact that the statement of the Prime Minister was not, as quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, that the Government would observe a strict neutrality simply. The Prime Minister stated that the observance of a strict neutrality on our part was dependent on the observance of certain conditions on the part of Russia.
        MR. WHALLEYsaid, that in the Crimean War this country had been made the tool of France—France being the mere instrument and sword of the Vatican. [Laughter.] He believed that

        769
        Lord Russell would be disposed to say that it was by the inscrutable influence of the Vatican, which they were unable to detect and control, that this country was dragged into that war. ['' Oh, oh!"] He (Mr. Whalley) might be all wrong; but surely hon. Gentlemen might give their attention when such grave issues were at stake. All Europe concurred in the views which he expressed, and France was now in convulsions on the question whether that influence was to obtain a predominant power. He could not understand why these expressions of his were always met with laughter. [Laughter.] He begged to say that the laughter stimulated Mm in his effort to fix the attention of the House on the subject. He was speaking on an authority as high as a man could speak—namely, those engaged in the contest. Of course, he might be wrong. [" No," laughter, and cheers.] Surely when the issue at stake was the continuation of the Crimean policy, it could do no harm to offer a remonstrance. The hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) referred approvingly to the present war. Cardinal Manning said he looked upon it as a most beautiful sign, and he regarded the existing antagonism of the nations as a fact full of consolation. His (Mr. Whalley's) observations would be treated with ridicule; but Lord Palmerston said that there never had been a great war in Europe which had not been instigated by that Power, which was without exception the greatest Power in the world. He (Mr. Whalley) would be glad to believe that he was under a delusion; but Lord Palmerston said, that wherever they saw a Jesuit there was danger. Their laws said so, because they enforced a penalty of £50 a-week on every Jesuit; and Germany said the same thing, and had expelled them from the country, yet they were here in greater numbers than in any other country. The deliberate sense of Lord Derby's despatch of the 6th of May was to embitter the relations between the two countries; it was a deliberate insult, intended to provoke Russia into acts of antagonism and hostility. ["No, no!"] Of course, what he said was a matter of no further consequence; but he must further say that the Emperor of Russia had thought not fit to reply in the same insulting and arrogant terms, because he had not
        770
        only his own sense of the rectitude of his intentions, but knew that he had Europe with him. [Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: Oh, oh!] He greatly regretted that the hon. and gallant Admiral opposite did not favour them with intelligible speech, instead of exhibiting the House as a bear garden. He gave his cordial adhesion to the policy marked out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, and threw on the Government the responsibility of a line of action that had left them isolated and contemptible, and surely with nothing to go to their constituents with. If it were a national course of policy, they would deserve the hatred as well as the contempt of the nations of Europe. Under these circumstances he should second the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, that on the Government rested the responsibility of conducting matters in a satisfactory manner during the Recess.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
        Clause 4 (Treasury may, in certain cases of exigency, authorise expenditure unprovided for; provided that the aggregate grants for the Navy services and for the Army services respectively be not exceeded).
        MR. MONKmoved, as an Amendment in page 3, line 4, to leave out the word "with," and to substitute the words—
        "Within ten days after such sanction shall have been given, if Parliament be then sitting, and if not, within ten days after the next meeting of Parliament, and shall be further included in;"
        the object being that Parliament might as soon as possible have cognizance of such sanction. He had directed the attention of the House to this question last year, and pointed out many irregularities, for which the Admiralty was responsible. The present system had been condemned by the Committee on Public Accounts, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised inquiry during the present Session.
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member, and thought that the present

        771
        practice was capable of improvement, and that Parliament should have its attention called to such cases. But, regarding the Amendment which followed the one under Notice on the Paper—that of the hon. and gallant General opposite (Sir George Balfour)—with some favour, he should be inclined to let the matter be referred to the consideration of the Committee on Public Accounts next Session. He must therefore resist the Amendment at present.
        MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was glad to hear the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendment (Sir George Balfour), by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause agreed to.
        Remaining clauses agreed to.
        House resumed.
        Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

      LOCAL TAXATION (RETURNS) BILL.
      (Mr. Sclater-Booth, Mr. Salt.)
      LOCAL TAXATION (RETURNS) BILL.

        [BILL 220.] COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Clause 1 (Date for annual return of local taxation).
        On the Motion of Mr. RITCHIE, Amendment made in page 1, line 16, by leaving out all after "may," and inserting—
        "from time to time prescribe, upon the application of any particular authority in respect of their receipts and expenditure, or of any rates, taxes, tolls, or dues levied by them, or in respect of the receipts and expenditure and of the rates, taxes, tolls, or dues levied by any class of authorities."
        Clause, as amended, agreed to.
        Clauses 2 to 5, inclusive, agreed to with Amendments.
        Clause 6 (Short title).
        Amendment, in page 3, line 24, to add, "Nothing in this Act shall apply to the Metropolitan Board of "Works;"— (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause agreed to.
        Remaining clauses agreed to.
        House resumed.
        Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

      MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (NEWCHARTERS) BILL. [Lords]— [BILL 244.]

        COMMITTEE.
        Order for Committee read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
        MR. CHARLEYexpressed a hope that the Government would not proceed with the question further that Session, as the measure was opposed by several corporations.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was not aware that that was so; but if it were, the opposition should have been raised on the second reading. The object of the measure was simply to settle certain doubts as to the power of Her Majesty to construct new corporations under the Municipal Corporation Acts, especially with respect to the control of the police force under them. It was also intended to remove doubts as to charters.
        MR. J. COWENbelieved that the chief opposition arose from the difficulties which some of the corporations felt they would have in putting the Bill in force. They would prefer a simple and expeditious process.
        MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that on the creation of new corporations difficulties had been experienced in regard to the police. It was objectionable that small places should be incorporated, if they must have the control of their own police, which would be too few to constitute an independent force. The Bill would facilitate the granting of charters to such places, which were now refused because they would have separate police.
        MR. WHALLEYprotested against the whole proceeding, the object of which was to further centralize the police force. There was already universal dissatisfaction at the management of the police force.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Bill considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)
        Clauses 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
        Clause 8 (Provision as to police force in new borough).
        MR. SERJEANT SIMONmoved, as an Amendment, that the clause be left out. He did so because it was, in fact, contrary to the express object of the Bill, which was intended to give those small corporations greater power of local self-government. But it did nothing of the Kind. It took away from the corporations the power of regulating and controlling their own affairs so far as the appointment of a police force was concerned, and required that they should obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department before such a force could be appointed. Instead of an extension of local self-government, it was a greater step towards centralization than had hitherto been made, and he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would consent to the omission of the clause.
        SIR GEORGE BOWYERsupported the Motion, which he said not only affected the details, but the very principle of the measure. To appoint a municipal body by charter, and then to withhold from it the power of appointing a sufficient police force to keep the peace with the Secretary of State's consent, was such an absurdity that he was astonished to find it seriously proposed. If the municipal body could not be entrusted with that power it ought to be swept away.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not see his way to eliminating the clause from the Bill. It was not desirable that where a small borough was incorporated it should have the right to appoint its own police force without the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for the result of such a power would be that the borough would almost always exercise it, and a small, ill-paid, and inefficient force would be established, instead of the existing efficient county force being continued.
        MR. MORGAN LLOYDalso dissented from the Amendment, but thought a limit of population might be fixed below which no borough should be allowed to
        774
        have a separate police force. With some reluctance, he felt bound to vote against the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) if he went to a division. He approved of the object his hon. and and learned Friend had in view—that was, to avoid centralization and preserve local self-government, but thought some provision should be introduced into the Bill to prevent the evil against which the clause was directed. He would, therefore, on Report, move an Amendment which he believed would effect both objects, and which, he trusted, would meet with the approval of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General.
        MR. NEWDEGATEprotested against the creation of a great number of small police jurisdictions, on the ground that they would not work satisfactorily. He suggested that the Government should consider whether some limit of population could not be fixed, the larger boroughs being allowed to have their own police force, whilst the boroughs below that limit should not possess that right.
        MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he was not prepared to give an unlimited power to the Secretary of State in the matter, being anxious to avoid anything like centralization, and should have been glad if he did not interfere in the matter at all, but if he did, it should be in boroughs with a certain number of inhabitants. The larger boroughs could see to their own interests, but if all these small local authorities were allowed to act solely for themselves, without the supervision of some central authority, he feared that the consequence must inevitably be, to superinduce a state of varied and uncontrolled irresponsibility, very much like what might be termed legal chaos.
        MR. WHALLEYsaid, local municipalities had a perfect right to manage their own affairs. The authority of the police force was not satisfactory to the country, and the further it was removed from the control of the local authorities, the greater was the expense and inefficiency of the force.
        DR. KENEALYdeprecated the further step in the direction of centralization involved in the clause.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERALthought that it was highly necessary that some discretion should be reserved to the Home Secretary.
        MR. NEWDEGATEthanked the ton. and learned Gentleman for that expression of his opinion.
        MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERALpromised to consider the question which had been raised before Report.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause agreed to.
        Remaining clauses agreed to, with an Amendment.
        MR. ARTHUR PEELmoved, in page 5, after Clause 13, to insert the following clause:—
        (Amendment of Municipal Corporations Acts (1859), &c.)
        "And whereas it is expedient to amend ' The Municipal Corporations Act, 1859,' and 'The Municipal Corporations Act (1859) Amendment Act': Be it therefore further Enacted, That such petition as, by section one of' The Municipal Corporations Act, 1859,' may be made by the council of any borough by agreement of two-thirds in number of the said council, may be also made by any number (not less than twenty) of the burgesses of any borough; and may pray, not only for the division of such borough into wards, or for the alteration of the number and boundaries of the wards into which such borough is (or from time to time shall be) divided, but also for the re-apportionment of the number of councillors among the existing wards of such borough without altering the number or boundaries of such wards; and it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, from time to time, as she shall think fit, by advice of Her Privy Council, not only to fix the number of wards into which such borough shall be divided, but also to order that the apportionment of the number of councillors of any borough among the existing wards of such borough shall be altered without altering the number or boundaries of the wards into which such borough is divided; and thereupon a barrister may be appointed in manner provided by the said Act for the purpose of re-apportioning the number of councillors of the borough among the existing wards of such borough without alteration of the boundaries of such wards."
        At present there existed great anomalies and inequalities in the representation of municipal boroughs, and if the present state of affairs was allowed to continue, a sweeping reform would become necessary, and a re-adjustment of representation on a large scale would be inevitable. He was able to cite a great number of instances in which there was no proportion at all between the number of councillors and the rateable value of the property represented. In Liverpool
        776
        one ward with 19,000 burgesses returned three councillors, while others with 9,000, 8,000, 1,500, and 1,000 respectively returned, each of them the same number of three councillors; and the same state of things prevailed in Oldham, Lancaster, Winchester, and in scores of other places. In the case of Boards of Guardians there was power to re-adjust the representation which did not exist with regard to municipal corporations. It was necessary that remedies should be applied from time to time, and whether rateable value or numbers as in the case of Birmingham were taken as the basis of representation, he should be satisfied provided the present anomalous state of things were corrected. He need not enlarge on the extent and importance of the functions of these corporations; his only object in moving the new clause was to remedy a real defect, and to make the great Act of 1835, not only in theory, but in fact, the charter of municipal liberty.
        THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was necessary for him to state that if the clause were agreed to, it would be necessary to amend the title of the Bill.
        THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he was obliged reluctantly to say that he could not accept the clause, because it was not germane to the subject-matter of the Bill. The object of the Government in introducing the measure was to make provision for the granting of charters to new municipalities. There was no intention that it should have any relation to existing municipalities, and the introduction of this new clause would produce a serious alteration, not only in relation to the new, but also to the old municipalities. In 1872 a Bill to the same effect as the clause had been introduced, and had been objected to, because it would be altering the constitution of the municipalities to suit political purposes. He was, however, sure that his hon. Friend had no political purposes in view. Whether the machinery of the Amendment was good he could not at the moment say; but it certainly seemed to him that it was rather a strong measure to give to 20 burgesses the power of petitioning for an alteration of the wards against the wish and view of the Governing Body of the town. At the same time, he was convinced that, owing to

        777
        increase of population in many places any other causes, the divisions of the population were not properly represented, and no doubt a measure to render the representation more adequate was desirable. He would be imperilling the Bill if he consented to the Amendment; but in the course of next Session the Government would have to introduce some measure amending in several respects the Acts relating to municipal corporations, and when that was done, the subject which the hon. Gentleman had just brought forward should have his most careful attention, and he would endeavour to promote the objects which the hon. Gentleman had in view.
        MR. J. COWENsaid, he was glad that the Government would introduce a measure next Session, and thought the announcement would be satisfactory to corporations throughout the country. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. A. Peel) would be satisfied with the promise that had been given by the Government. At the same time, no one acquainted with the management of towns could fail to see that this was a most important question. Large towns had a tendency to spread outward, and in Newcastle there were three wards called into existence since the passing of the Reform Act, which had now each a larger population than the whole town previous to the passing of that Act.
        MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, he was ready to withdraw the clause after the very satisfactory explanation that had been given.
        Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
        House resumed.
        Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

      BAR EDUCATION AND DISCIPLINE BILL.— [Lords.]
      (Mr. Attorney General.)
      [BILL 221.] COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
      MR. GREGORYappealed to his hon. and learned Friend who had charge of the Bill not to proceed with it at that late period of the Session. Its provi-
      778
      sions would require a great deal of discussion, which they could not possibly now receive. It proposed to constitute a council for conducting the call to the Bar, composed of members named partly by the Inns of Court and partly by the Crown, who should control the discipline of the Bar. The mode of call was to be left, however, to the present authorities; and this practical anomaly of two controlling Bodies ought to be abolished to make the Bill satisfactory.
      SIR GEORGE BOWYERcordially agreed with his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Gregory) that the Bill, under present circumstances, should not be gone on with. He had given the Bill the most favourable consideration, but it did not appear to him successfully to grapple with the difficulties of the problem which it proposed to solve. The Council was the fundamental part of the Bill, and it really took from the benchers the calls to the Bar. Under these circumstances, what was to become of the Inns of Court? There was in it nothing to prevent Lincoln's Inn, for instance, or Gray's Inn from selling off their property, and disposing of the proceeds as they might think fit. They would, under this Bill, have no functions, and although the students might dine in their halls, they might as well dine at the Criterion or any other place. The Inns of Court would thus become perfectly useless; but, in his opinion, discipline would better be carried out by them than by the Council which would be created by the Bill, inasmuch as the authorities of those Inns would be likely to know much more with respect to the conduct of their members.
      MR. ISAAC, as one totally unconnected with the Legal Profession, also appealed to the Government to postpone the Bill.
      MR. SHERIDANhoped that the Bill would not be postponed. So far as it went it was an excellent Bill, and he should be sorry to see it delayed.
      MR. RODWELL, having been engaged in the preliminary discussions which had led to the Bill, and knowing the careful consideration which had been bestowed on it by the heads of the Legal Profession, thought it would be an unfortunate thing if this piece of useful legislation were postponed. It was a very important compromise, and it would merely enable the Inns of Court to do

      779
      collectively what they now did individually, and would be a great boon to the rising school of lawyers.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that judging from the Notices which had been put upon the Paper, and what had fallen from hon. Members who had spoken, this was clearly a Bill of considerable importance and interest to the Legal Profession, and whatever interested the Legal Profession interested the community at large. It was also clear that the discussion of the Bill would take a considerable time. The measure had come down from the House of Lords, and had passed through the various stages in the House of Commons as far as the stage of Committee; and it would not be absolutely fatal to it if the Committee was not proceeded with that night. It would still be possible to dispose of the Bill by taking the Committee to - morrow, and the third reading on Monday. There were below it in the Orders one or two Bills which it was very important to proceed with, especially the Destructive Insects Bill, which it was most desirable to proceed with that night. He was afraid that if they entered at once upon the discussion of the Bar Discipline Bill they would hardly have time left at that Sitting for a satisfactory discussion of the Destructive Insects Bill; and he would, therefore, propose to let the Bar Discipline Bill stand over till to-morrow. In the meantime, he would take the opportunity of consulting his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, and to-morrow he would be able to state whether the Bill would be proceeded with or not.
      MR. MORGAN LLOYDhoped the Bill would not be abandoned.
      MR. CHARLEYpointed out that no practising Member of the Bar had expressed an opinion in favour of the postponement of the Bill till next Session, and it would be most important to have it passed immediately. The discipline of the Bar had. long been allowed to fall into abeyance. If the present Bill did nothing more than enable the benchers, or the council representing them, to swear witnesses and compel the production of documents, it would be an exceedingly useful treasure.
      MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Bill was not asked for by the public, and was brought forward in the interests of the
      780
      Bar, which was nothing but a great trades union.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Committee deferred till To-morrow.

    DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS BILL.— [Lords.]
    (Viscount Sandon.)
    [BILL 281.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    VISCOUNT SANDON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the measure had become necessary, because it had been discovered that the Government had no power to deal with the Colorado beetle, if it should appear in this country. The House was no doubt aware that the devastations caused by that insect in America had been of a most serious character. Potato crops had suffered to a very great extent, and turnips, mangel-wurzel, and other green crops had also fallen victims to the assaults of the beetles. It was proposed to give the Privy Council power, resembling that which it possessed with reference to cattle diseases, to prohibit the importation of any articles which were likely to bring this terrible visitor to our shores, and also to order the destruction of any crops in which the beetle had appeared. It was further proposed that the local authority should be vested with the same power which it had under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act. The Bill would extend to Ireland, where it was especially necessary to take steps for the protection of the potato crops. All Orders of the Privy Council made under the provisions of this Bill would be laid before Parliament in the usual manner, and provision would be made for compensation in case the powers conferred by this measure were exercised. The House would feel that the only hope of dealing effectually with this terrible insect was to attack it immediately it made its appearance on our shores, and that no measures could be too strong that would ensure its extermination. The House might rest assured that the Privy Council would be exceedingly loath to put the powers conferred by this Bill into force except in case of necessity. He hoped and believed that these powers would enable them to keep this destructive insect out of these Islands.
    He begged to move the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, ' That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Viscount Sandon.)
    MR. PARNELLasked, whether the Bill would enable Orders to be made to prevent the importation of potatoes from England into Ireland?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that on looking at the Bill, he thought that the Lord Lieutenant would have power to make such Orders.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIRremarked that the subject was one of such great importance that he should have been glad if the noble Lord the Vice President had given them a little more information with regard to it. The noble Lord had not informed the House whether the Privy Council was taking steps to obtain skilled assistance for the extermination of this very noxious insect.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 264.]
  (Mr. Isaac, Mr. Ashbury, Mr. Herschell.)
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Isaac.)
  MR. MELDONcomplained that the Bill had been kept back to the end of the Session, so that hon. Members had not time to consider its provisions, its object being to favour the publicans, and give them an exceptional advantage over all other tradesmen, by excepting them from the provisions of the original Act. He did not expect he could prevent the Bill becoming law; but he would move that the Order for the Third Reading be discharged, and that the Bill be re-committed, in order that the following Proviso might be added to Clause 1:—
  "Provided always, That where such spirits, not being gin, have been so reduced below an alcoholic strength of twenty-five degrees under proof, this Act shall not apply."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "Bill be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed in respect of Clause 1,"—(Mr. Meldon,) — instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. ISAACsaid, he should have no objection to the Amendment, provided the clause proposed would not imperil the passing of the Bill that Session. The Bill was not intended to in any way alter the original Act, but was merely an amending Bill, explaining that the reduction of the strength of spirits by the admixture of water only did not come within the definition of adulteration.
  DR. CAMERONmoved the Adjournment of the Debate, because it was most preposterous to attempt at that period of the Session to alter the law in such a manner without proper explanation and discussion. The Bill had been introduced in an irregular manner, and, instead of being a gloss upon the original Act, it was really a direct violation of its principle.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Dr. Cameron.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he must object to the Bill being re-committed. It was not a new piece of legislation, but an attempt to remove difficulties, as to the interpretation of a clause in the Adulteration Act. It having been suggested to him that in consequence of the varying decisions of magistrates some legislation upon the subject was necessary to supplement that Act, he could not undertake himself to introduce a Bill, and the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) thereupon brought forward this measure, which he considered to be in the nature of an expansion of or gloss upon the original Act, and which he therefore would not oppose. While assenting to the principle of the proposed clause, he could be no party to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare, as to the proposed limitation of 25 per cent. He did not say it was not a fair proposal; but before it was accepted, he thought it should be subjected to some

  783
  further inquiry by Select Committee or otherwise.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the Bill introduced a most material alteration in the principle of the law as it stood. If the principle were adopted, that when a publican was charged with mixing water with spirits the element of the price at which the article was sold should be considered, the vendor of milk might equally claim that the same principle should be applied in his case.
  MR. CALLANdescribed the discussion as a tempest in a teapot.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. CALLANproceeded to say that the question was not one of adulteration, but the addition of water to alcoholic spirits, and he should have supposed that the hon. Members for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) and Kildare (Mr. Meldon) would have given their warmest support to such an addition. There was no reason in such an objection, and he hoped the hon. Member for Nottingham would persevere in his intention. He should give his support to the Bill.
  MR. HERSCHELL, as one of its introducers, could not admit that the Bill introduced any new principle, but that it was a mere exposition of what he considered must have been the intention of the original Act, and it had become necessary in the case of spirits, by reason of the varying and, as he thought, erroneous views which different magistrates took of the matter. He contended that if magistrates would put a true interpretation upon the section as it stood that would entirely meet the case. It had never been the practice in the case of spirits to sell them absolutely pure; and it would be probably as mischievous a thing as could be done with regard to the health and well-being of the community to induce vendors of spirits to sell them without any admixture of water. He hoped that the Bill would be allowed to pass.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he thought his Amendment would have been accepted. The direct operation of the Bill in Ireland would be that they would have bad spirit full of fusel oil, and mixed with water instead of good spirit. He complained of the way in which the Bill was
  784
  being hurried through the House. He should certainly oppose the measure, and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to go on with it, but to have it fully discussed next Session.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 42; Majority 22.—(Division List, No. 314.)
  Question again proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BLAKEmoved the Adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Blake.)
  DR. CAMERONrose to address the House, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  DR. CAMERONwent on to contend that the purchaser should be protected quite as much in the article of gin as of sugar or milk. He believed that if this Bill were carried it would lead to a further adulteration of gin with fusel oil, and its subsequent toning down.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Turnpike Acts Continuance*(195).
Second Reading— Fisheries (Dynamite) *(193).
Committee—Report—County Officers and Courts (Ireland)*(177); Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland)*(180); Police (Expenses) Act Continuance*(167); Colonial Stock*(189).
Third Reading — Sheriff Courts (Scotland))*(179); East India Loan*(166); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)*(183); Prisons (Scotland)*(184); Public Libraries Acts Amendment (No. 2)*(185); Canal Boats*(176), and passed.
Royal Assent—Factors' Acts Amendment [40 & 41 Vict. c. 39]; Registered Writs Execution (Scotland) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 40]; Crown Office [40 & 41 Vict. c. 41]; Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 42]; Justices Clerks [40 & 41 Vict. c. 43]; Superannuation (Mercantile Marine Fund Officers) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 44]; Treasury Chest Fund [40 & 41 Vict. c. 45]; South Africa [40 & 41 Vict. c. 47]; Universities of Oxford and Cambridge [40 & 41 Vict. c. 48]; Winter Assizes [40 & 41 Vict. c. 46]; Prisons (Ireland) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 49]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Caistor Union, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. ccxxvii]; Saint Catherine's Harbour, Jersey [40 & 41 Vict. c. ccxxviii.]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Joint Boards) [40 & 41 Vict. c. ccxxix.]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Hyde &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. ccxxx.]

METROPOLITAN STREET IMPROVEMENT BILLS.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS' REASONS.
  Commons' Reasons considered, according to Order.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, as Chairman of their Lordships' Committee by whom this Bill had been considered, he wished to explain the course taken by the Committee with reference to the clause which had been rejected by the other House. As their Lordships were aware, the Bill was one involving a very large scheme of metropolitan improvement, and included the formation of a street running northwards from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road, named in the Bill, Street No. 6. During the consideration of the Bill, the Committee, at the instance of the representatives of the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Salisbury), inserted a clause giving protection to the estate of Lord Salisbury. The Metropolitan Board of Works was, naturally, not very well pleased with this clause, and after some time, a sort of compromise was entered into, which he thought the Metropolitan Board of Works should have respected, that when the Bill went down to the other House the clause should be dropped. For his part, he regretted that the compromise had not been adhered to. He could not help thinking that the compromise would have given breathing time to the Board, and that

  741
  by next year they would have been in a position to come before Parliament with a better scheme for a street in the direction to which he had referred. When the Bill first came on for consideration in the other House, the Chairman of the Board was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements that had been come to in their Lordships' House; but after an adjournment of that consideration, that Chairman of the Board, through the influence of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), suddenly shifted his ground, and supported that hon. Member in his Motion for striking out the clause inserted by their Lordships' Committee, and restoring the Bill to its original shape. With regard to the principle involved in this question, no doubt it was right, as a general rule, that when the Metropolitan Board of Works took property for the improvement of a street, it should obtain possession of the frontage, in order to recoup itself for its large expenditure. But it must be remembered that ordinarily new streets ran through a poor class of property, and that better houses were erected than those which had been pulled down. When, however, the new street ran through a valuable property, it became a serious question whether, under the ordinary process, sufficient compensation could be given to the owner of property taken for the improvement, if he were not allowed the frontage. The real question at issue in the present case was, whether there might not be occasionally exceptional legislation. If a hard-and-fast line were to be drawn, and no exceptions whatever were to be allowed, the sooner they were made aware of it the better—the owners of property would know what they had to expect, and the Committees would know what course they were to take. He (Viscount Hardinge) submitted that exceptional legislation might be occasionally entertained when good grounds were shown for it. In this case, after attentively considering all the evidence, it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that there were exceptional circumstances arising from the character of the property. Leases were falling in every six years; and on the property of the noble Marquess there were large warehouses of great depth, which would be much impaired if the frontage were to be taken by the Board of Works. It
  742
  was contended by counsel for the noble Marquess that under the ordinary scale of award the noble Marquess would not be fairly compensated for the injury done to his property; that the frontage would be of more value to Lord Salisbury than to anybody else; and that if the Metropolitan Board of Works got power under the Bill to acquire both the freehold and the leasehold, the noble Marquess would not obtain one farthing in direct compensation for his property abutting on St. Martin's Lane. That was not disputed by the other side, while it was admitted that land was not taken on the other side of the street because anything done on that side would interfere with the back part of the Alhambra. There were precedents for what had been done by the Committee; for, though the cases of the Duke of Northumberland, the Duke of Norfolk, and others, in respect of former Bills, were not exactly similar to that of Lord Salisbury in this instance, they were sufficiently analogous to be precedents. He could not but protest against the conduct pursued by the Metropolitan Board of Works; but, inasmuch as, if their Lordships refused their concurrence to what had been done by the House of Commons, the whole scheme would fall to the ground for a year, he could not recommend their Lordships to take that course. He thought, therefore, their Lordships ought to assent to the Commons' Amendment, and he had the authority of Lord Salisbury to say that he assented to that course.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEthought that there was one point in regard to these improvement schemes that required very serious consideration. The value of property was enormously increased by the widening of a street. It seemed therefore generally undesirable that it should be effected by taking the property on one side of the street only. By taking the property on both sides the local authority obtained two improved frontages to pay for the work, and it seemed to him unjust that property on one side should be taken compulsorily, while the owner on the other side reaped the benefit without paying a single sixpence for it, and improper favour might thereby be done to particular owners.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, one word on behalf of persons who have been very unjustly abused

  743
  —my own agents. They did nothing but their duty in advancing before the Committee, on my behalf, claims which seemed to them to arise out of distinct precedents and the state of facts as they existed, and to urge those claims through counsel by such arguments as they thought applicable to the circumstances. It was the duty of an impartial Committee—and your Lordships know that these Committees are selected with the most absolute care to secure their impartiality—to determine whether a proper case had been made out for those claims. The Committee did determine that a proper case had been made out. I shall not go into arguments as to the merits of the claims, because the matter is one affecting myself; and for a Member of your Lordships' House to contribute here to a judgment in his own case would be wholly irregular. I concur with my noble Friend the Chairman of the Committee on the Bill, that the fact of the Bill affecting one of the Members of your Lordships' House makes it very unadvisable that you should insist on the determination of the Committee and give a decision in my favour. I think that, whatever may be the inconvenience caused by the proceeding adopted by the Metropolitan Board of Works, the determination to restore the Bill to its original shape is, under the circumstances, the wisest course you can adopt. But I wish to say one word as to the public aspect of this question—because it is obvious that it has a public as well as a private aspect. As my noble Friend (Viscount Hardinge) said, no doubt it is right that the Board of Works should repay itself for street improvements by deriving a profit from the frontages created by a new street; but it by no means follows—and I protest against such a precedent being drawn from this particular instance—that whenever the Board of Works makes a street it has a right to speculate in frontages. At best, it is an exceptionally dangerous power to give the Board of Works. It by no means follows that the taking of the frontages by the Board will in all cases be a repayment to the ratepayers, though it is certain that in all cases it will be a serious disturbance to the freeholder. Whatever rights Parliament gives to the Metropolitan Board of Works must be given on the ground that it is for a public benefit; but if the taking of
  744
  frontages be not shown to be such a benefit, then it is not only a wrong done to the freeholder whose property is unduly disturbed, but a loss and a very serious wrong done to ratepayers, whose money is used in an adventurous building speculation. At one time it was thought that every railway would pay. Now it is thought that every new street will enormously raise the value of the frontages. I believe the ratepayers will some day find, to their cost, that this idea is a delusion. Those purchases and re-sales of land which the Metropolitan Board of Works is so fond of, involve great expense in fees to lawyers, architects, surveyors, and valuers, whose time is valuable, and whose charges are proportionately high. I have had an opportunity of knowing something about it in connection with two or three railway companies whose difficulties were very seriously aggravated, if they were not entirely caused, by surplus land which they had acquired, and which they had to dispose of, and by the enormous charges which followed on that operation. It is very much to be feared that the Metropolitan Board of Works, unless it sells those frontages with great discretion, will find the costs of the machinery employed in disposing of them such as to entirely destroy the profitable nature of the operation, and that it will discover that, while it has it in its power to do great damage to and inflict great loss on the freeholders, it also has it in its power to squander the money of the ratepayers.
  Lords Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed not insisted on, and Commons Consequential Amendments agreed to.

  FISHERIES (DYNAMITE) BILL.—(No.192.)
  (The Earl of Limerick.)
  FISHERIES (DYNAMITE) BILL.—(No.192.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
    Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Limerick.)
    THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, but would reserve to himself the right to oppose it on its further stages, if on further inquiry he thought it necessary to do so. He would call their Lord-

    745
    ships' attention to the 3rd clause, which practically laid down the principle that any person acting contrary to this Act outside the three-mile zone should be considered as having acted within that limit. That might give rise to serious consequences, and he suggested the omission of the clause in Committee.
    THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, this Bill had come from the Commons, and it did not appear to have occurred to anyone that it was in an improper shape when passed by that House. It was extremely important at this period of the Session, when their Lordships had very little time to deal with Bills sent up to them, that they should be looked to by some one before they were sent to that House.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the Bill proceeded, he hoped that the noble Lord who had charge of it would strike out the 3rd clause. It had not yet been decided how legislation with regard to the three-mile limit on the high seas ought to proceed.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow; and Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. to be considered in order to their being dispensed with.

    THE EASTERN QUESTION—PARTITION OF TURKEY.—QUESTION.
    LORD COLCHESTERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to reports circulated by the Austrian Press to the effect that the policy of the British Government is to await and take part in the partition of Turkey; and, whether he would have any objection to state if there was any foundation for such report?
    THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I cannot say that my attention has been specially called to the reports to which my noble Friend has referred; and though I cannot answer for my Colleagues, I think it probable that their attention has been directed to those reports in even a less degree. I have seen so many wild and eccentric statements in Continental journals as to the policy and intentions of the British Go-
    746
    vernment, that I should not be inclined to attach much importance to them, or take take much notice of them; and, certainly, if my noble Friend had not brought this matter forward, I should not have thought that these rumours, however precise may be their nature, were worthy of contradiction in this House. I have, however, not the slightest difficulty in satisfying the anxiety of my noble Friend by assuring him that the reports to which he refers have no foundation whatever.
    House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.