Sitting of 26 February 1877

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Police Superannuation Funds, appointed; Lunacy Laws, Mr. Stewart disch., Sir Trevor Lawrence added; Commons, appointed.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1876-7.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading Valuation of Property (Ireland) [102].
Second Reading—Publicans Certificates (Scotland) [87].
Committee — Report—Beer Licences (Ireland) [57-101].

THE BALLOT ACT — MARKING OF BALLOT PAPERS.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for carrying into effect the recommendation unanimously made by the Select Committee on the Ballot Act in their Report of last Session, in favour of removing the conflicts which exist between English, Scotch, and Irish legal decisions as to the marking of ballot papers?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, before the present Ballot Act expires the whole subject of the Ballot will have to be carefully re-considered by Parliament. Till the time for this re-consideration arrives the Government are reluctant to disturb in any way the working of the present Act, for they feel that it would be difficult to frame provisions as to the marking of Ballot papers more simple or less open to diversity of construction than those of the Act of 1872. There have, no doubt, been some differences between the English, Irish, and Scotch Courts in their interpretation of the law, but these differences do not appear to have given rise to much practical inconvenience. The suggestions of the Select Committee of last year will, no doubt, be carried into effect when the Ballet Act is continued, if it should be ultimately determined to continue it.

PATENT OFFICE—SPECIFICATIONS OF EXPIRED PATENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. E. J. REEDasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that steps

1015
have been or are being taken at the Patent Office for the destruction of the printed specifications of expired patents, five copies only of each being reserved; and, if so, whether the remonstrances which have been expressed against this course will be attended to, and an ample number of copies of all existing specifications be preserved?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I have made inquiry into the subject mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member, and am happy in informing him of the result. In pursuance of an Order recently issued, and which carried out the recommendation contained in a Treasury Report of last year, the printed specifications from the earliest period to the end of 1860 have been examined and the damaged and surplus copies eliminated, care being taken to retain a sufficient stock for the requirements of the public. The number of copies of each specification reserved in good condition, exclusive of 10 copies supplied to the sale-room and other copies reserved for the use of the gentlemen who are preparing the classified abridgments of specifications, is as follows:—Specifications under the old law from 1617 to 1852, 5 copies of original and 12 of second editions; under the new law, from 1852 to 1856, 10 copies of original and 15 of second editions; 1857 to 1860, 20 copies of original and 25 copies of second editions; and 50 copies of patents which have expired since 1860 have been kept. It was stated in a leading journal in January last, that the greater part of the stock of expired specifications was in constant demand. This is an exaggeration. Ample provision has been made for the supply of any demand which may probably be made. The accumulation of specifications had, owing to the system formerly adopted in the Patent Office, become so great that it was absolutely necessary to adopt the course which has been pursued.

PLEURO-PNEUMONIA (IRELAND) ORDER, 1876.—QUESTION.
MR. M. BROOKSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he is aware that complaints have been sent to the Local Government Board and to the Privy Council of Ireland, relative to the burials of cattle slaughtered in accordance with
1016
the Pleuro Pneumonia (Ireland) Order 1876, in a field adjoining the spinning mills on the Circular Road, Dublin; if it is complained that the provisions of the Order in Council with regard to the mode in which the burials are carried out are not enforced either in letter or spirit; that the carcasses are not buried at a reasonable depth, some not one foot, some not quite below the surface; that the place selected for such burials is unfit for the purpose, being used for grazing ground for other cattle, and being in a near neighbourhood of land in which extensive building of dwelling-houses has lately been in operation; and, if he will order any, and what steps, to be taken to prevent a recurrence of these complaints?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, complaints of the nature described in the hon. Member's Question were made both to the Local Government Board for Ireland and to the Irish Government. The Director of the Veterinary department of the Privy Council, Professor Ferguson, inquired into the matter, and it appeared from his Report that the complaints were a good deal exaggerated, as he stated that the animals were buried at an average depth of 4½ feet, and that since the field had been used for this purpose no cattle had been allowed to graze there. He expressed his opinion, however, that the place in question, I being within the municipal boundary, was unsuitable for the purpose for which it had been selected. In that opinion the Lord Lieutenant entirely concurred, and the Local Government Board were I requested to point out to the Board of Guardians the propriety of at once discontinuing the interment of the carcasses in this field, and selecting another at a distance from Dublin, which they could easily do, as their Union extends over a large rural district. The Local Government Board wrote to this effect on the 19th of February, and it appears from the public Press that the Guardians have since taken steps for adopting the course suggested to them. I may add that the responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Cattle Diseases (Ireland) Act, 1876, rests with the Board of Guardians of the Union in which it may be put in force rather than with the Local Government Board or the Irish Executive.

ARMY—MILITIA RECRUITS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will inform the House how many recruits were obtained for the Militia during the year 1876, and what is the maximum age at which they are usually taken?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, in answer to the hon. Member's Question, I have to say that 38,437 recruits were enlisted for the Militia between the 1st of January and the 31st of December, 1876. Of these, 27,330 were from England and Wales, 3,720 from Scotland, and 7,387 from Ireland. Thirty-five years is the maximum age at which a recruit may be enrolled, 19 years is about the average age at which they are enrolled, and 23 years about the maximum age at which they are taken in any regiment.

INLAND REVENUE OFFICE, BRISTOL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HODGSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What steps have been taken in reference to the promised removal of the Inland Revenue Office at Bristol, and the cause of any delay that may have arisen in the matter?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the Board of Inland Revenue are waiting for the Office of Works to propose a site. The Commissioners of Public Works have endeavoured to obtain a suitable site both for Probate Registry and Inland Revenue. Several proposals have been made, and are still under consideration.

MAIZE AND BARLEY MALT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CLARE READasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is true that malt is now used in brewing which is made from maize or Indian corn; and if he will state how the malt duty is levied on such grain, whether by weight, measure, or otherwise; and, if it is still necessary for a farmer before steeping barley for his stock to give notice to the Inland Revenue; and if such notice is requisite before steeping maize or any other grain?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he was informed that a small quantity of malt was now
  1018
  used in brewing which was made from maize. The malt duty upon it was levied by gauge in exactly the same way as upon malt from barley. It was necessary for a farmer, before steeping barley for his stock, to give notice to the excise officer, and this regulation applied equally to barley, maize, or any other grain.

  RAMSGATE HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
  MR. PEMBERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether complaints have not been made for some years past with respect to the management of Ramsgate Harbour and its property; whether a private inquiry did not take place under the direction of the Board during the past autumn with reference to such complaints, and to certain proposals that the harbour and its property should be transferred to some local authority; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Papers connected with such inquiry, and the Report (if any) made to the Board; and, whether there would be any objection on the part of the Government to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire publicly into the matters above referred to?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, I am not aware of any specific complaints of mismanagement of Ramsgate Harbour. Proposals have been made for transferring the harbour to local bodies, but there seem to be no materials for constituting such a general authority over town and harbour as proposed, and certainly the harbour dues should only be expended on the harbour. Ramsgate Harbour was transferred to the Board of Trade in 1861, on the abolition of passing tolls, and the Board maintained the harbour till lately on a balance of capital; but lately Votes in Aid have been made by Parliament. This year the Vote will disappear and the Board of Trade is able to make the revenue and expenditure meet. An inquiry was held early last year at my request by the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and two other gentlemen with a view to ascertain whether any improvements could be made; but the Board of Trade do not see how they can relieve themselves of the trust. I will lay the Papers connected with this inquiry on the Table, and until these Papers are produced the

  1019
  House cannot judge if further inquiry is desirable. I do not think anything more can be elicited, but any information I can give the hon. Member I shall be happy to give him.

  THE JUDICATURE ACTS—REPORT OF THE COMMISSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRIGGSasked, Whether any steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government with a view to giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Legal Departments Commission, presented to Parliament in July 1874?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, in accordance with a suggestion contained in the Second Report of the Legal Departments Commission, the Lords of the Treasury have communicated with the Lord Chancellor, who has concurred in the appointment of a Committee of persons nominated by his Lordship and the other Presidents of Divisions in communication with the Treasury, to consider and report as to the extent to which, and the manner in which, the recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Commission can best be carried into effect, after sufficient experience of the new order of Procedure under the Judicature Acts has afforded materials for arriving at a decision. The subjects which shall be referred to this Committee are at present under consideration by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury. The names of the persons to serve on the Committee are also still matter of consideration; but I hope to be able to lay them on the Table at an early date.

  NAVY-COMPASSIONATE ALLOWANCES.-QUESTION.
  MR. PULESTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will consider the question of extending to petty officers and seamen of the Royal Navy the provisions of the Order in Council of the 23rd day of October last empowering the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, in their discretion, to grant Compassionate Allowances to Naval Officers who have been dismissed from the Service for misconduct, or have been allowed to resign to avoid trial by Court Martial?
  MR. HUNT, in reply, said, he could not give more consideration than he had
  1020
  already done to the subject contained in the Question of the hon. Member. The cases of the officers and men were very different. The latter, who gained their livelihood by manual labour, had no difficulty in obtaining other employment, but the officers, when thrown out of their employment, were often reduced almost to beggary.

  ARMY—AN IRISH REGIMENT OF THE GUARDS.—QUESTION.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether in framing the new arrangement for reconstructing the Regiments of the Army on a "territorial" basis, he has considered the propriety of officially recognising the presence of the Irish element in the Army, by constituting one of the seven battalions composing Her Majesty's Brigade of Guards an Irish Regiment, bearing an Irish name, having regard likewise to the circumstance that Scotch soldiers are already honoured by being represented in the Brigade by two battalions bearing a Scottish designation?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, he had made no new arrangements upon a territorial basis. They existed when he went into office, and the Guards and Rifles were excluded from them. The Irish element, he was happy to say, was very gallantly represented in the Army, and very honourably known in some of the regiments; but he had no intention to propose to alter the designations of any of the regiments of Guards.

  LICENSING ACT, 1872—SALE OF BEER BY RETAIL.—QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the conflicting decisions of the licensing justices, he will state whether residence upon the licensed premises is necessary for the sale of beer by retail not to be consumed on the premises; or whether he is prepared to introduce a measure to settle the question?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that he was not aware there had been any conflicting decisions of the licensing justices in this matter. He did not think that he could give any authoritative opinion as to what the law

  1021
  was. He was informed that on the 21st December, 1875, in the case of "The Queen v. the Justices of Yorkshire," it was settled by the Court of Queen's Bench that no qualification of residence was required for the sale of liquors to be drunk on the premises.

  TURKEY—A PETITION FROM BULGARIA.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. ANDERSON: I beg, Sir, to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have given him Private Notice, and which I ask in consequence of statements which appear in The Daily News to-day, which I have every reason to believe are well-founded —namely, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any knowledge of one or more Petitions from the inhabitants of Tatar - Bazardjik, or other Bulgarian towns, addressed to the European Powers or their Representatives at the late Conference, stating, among other things, that they have no faith in the new Constitution, although the Turkish authorities are compelling them to sign papers approving of it; and, also, whether any such Petitions have been received by the Government, and whether the Government will lay them on the Table?
  MR. BOURKE: The hon. Member has mentioned in his Question a paragraph in The Daily News, and I have compared the Petition which is in The Daily News to-day with one which reached the Foreign Office on the 20th, and it seems to be the same document. In answer to that part of the Question, therefore, I have to say that the Foreign Office have seen that Petition, and it is now going to Constantinople. There will, of course, be no objection to lay it on the Table with the rest of the Papers which will be placed before the House in due time on the full subject of Turkish affairs.
  MR. ANDERSON: Is that the only one?
  MR. BOURKE: That is the only one upon that subject which we have received.
  Afterwards,
  MR. ANDERSON: I rise to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, If I was correct in understanding him to say that he had sent that Petition to the
  1022
  Turkish Government at Constantinople, and, if so, if he has sent all the names?
  MR. BOURKE: No, Sir, I did not say to the Turkish Government at Constantinople. I said to Constantinople, and I hope the House will only suppose from that that they were sent to our Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople.
  MR. ANDERSON: With the names?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am anxious not to misunderstand the hon. Gentleman. He used some words to my hon. Friend which appeared to me to signify, and I wish to ask, whether we are to understand that they did signify, that the Government was going to lay further Papers on the Table with respect to Bulgaria.
  MR. BOURKE: What I stated was, that the hon. Member's Question related to Bulgaria, and that other Papers on that subject would be laid on the Table with other Papers bearing on the whole question which are in course of preparation. We have already laid two or three of these Papers on the Table; but I think it will be admitted that it is not convenient that we should go on laying Papers on the Table one after another, in this manner, and, therefore, I can only say that the Papers are being prepared, and that they will be presented when the Secretary of State considers it right in the interests of the public that they should be presented.
  MR. ANDERSON: What I wish to know is, whether the names of those who signed the Paper in question are to be held confidential, or whether they are to be made known to the Turkish Government?
  MR. BOURKE:I can only state what I stated before—that the Petition, with the names appended, will be sent to our Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople; and, of course, the names being attached, it will be presented in that form.
  MR. ANDERSON: Is the Chargé d'Affaires so instructed— [" Oh, oh! "] I want to know whether the names are to be kept confidential by our Chargé d'Affaires?
  MR. BOURKE: I have not the slightest objection to answer the question; but I think it would be better if the hon. Member would follow the usual practice and give Notice of it.
  MR. ANDERSON: Then I give Notice for to-morrow.

PARLIAMENT—A POINT OF ORDER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he desired to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair upon a point of Order. Standing Order No. 1 was to the effect that whenever Notice had been given that Estimates would be moved in Committee of Supply and the Committee stood as the First Order of the Day upon any day, except Thursday and Friday, upon which Government Orders had precedence, the Speaker should, when the Order for Committee was read, forthwith leave the Chair without putting any Question, unless an Amendment were moved relating to the particular division of the Estimates which was to be considered. In the early days of the Session he had given Notice of a Motion relating not to the Supplementary Estimates, which were set down for that evening, but to the whole of the Civil Service Estimates; but he found that his Notice had been omitted from the Paper. He asked whether he was not justified in asking to be allowed to address the House when the Order of the Day was called?
  MR. SPEAKER,in reply, said, that as the Supplementary Estimates which were to be considered and the hon. Member's Amendment both related to the Civil Service Estimates, he considered the hon. Member was entitled to proceed with his Amendment.

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

THE CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—PROPOSED MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that as the Notice to which he had already referred was not on the Paper, he would state its terms before he proceeded to make any remarks upon it—namely,
  "On Civil Service Estimates, to call attention to the want of proper explanation of the Civil Service Estimates, and to move, That it is desirable that proper explanation should be given by a Member of the Government before the House is asked to consider such estimates.'"
  1024
  The expenditure under the head of Civil Service Estimates was increasing largely year by year. He found on reference to the Papers which had been laid before the House that for the year 1874-5 the amount of Civil Service and Revenue Estimates was £20,073,000; that for 1875-6 the amount was £20,360,000; while for 1876-7, the year just about to close, it was £21,356,000—showing an increase of about £1,000,000 on the expenditure of the previous year. Then he found that in the Estimates which were now placed on the Table for the service of the year that was about to commence the amount of expenditure was £21,750,000. Under those circumstances, and when there were placed on the Paper Supplementary Estimates reaching to about £500,000 sterling in the Civil Service and Revenue Departments, he thought it was time that the House and the Government should adopt a more regular course of proceeding with regard to those Estimates. It might be that there were many items comprised in the Estimates of which hon. Members and himself might cordially approve; but, in his opinion, it was desirable that an explanation should be given of an expenditure which was now so largely increasing. That explanation should not be dependent on casual Questions from lion. Members, but should be one carefully prepared and studiously arranged and considered by a responsible Member of the Government. The Army Estimates were explained by the Secretary of State for War, and the Navy Estimates by the First Lord of the Admiralty, as the responsible heads of those Departments; but one looked in vain in the records of past years for any explanation of the Civil Service Estimates, excepting in regard to the Educational Department. It was right that there should be a careful explanation of the Estimates connected with Education, which were growing largely from year to year; but that head did not comprise all the large Services which belonged to the Estimates now upon the Table. There were, for instance, the Estimates for the Diplomatic Service and for Public Works, none of which ever received anything but the most casual explanation. The system adopted was this—The Secretary to the Treasury, doing what lay in his power to get through the work, brought

  1025
  on the Civil Service Estimates at any odd times, and if by chance there were very few hon. Members in the House, various items were hurriedly run through. Then hon. Members who had been absent at the time, but were specially interested in those items, would subsequently get up and start discussions upon them with other items of small importance, because the Government had given no explanation on subjects of greater moment, and were thought to be running through the items too perfunctorily and rapidly. That inconvenience could easily be obviated. If the Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the commencement of every Session, or on the first occasion when he moved that the House should go into Committee of Supply, would give a careful detailed explanation of all the Estimates connected with all the large Departments to which the Civil Service Estimates applied, the result would be not only to improve the position of hon. Members in regard to their knowledge of these Estimates, but also very materially to facilitate the transaction of Business by giving to each Estimate its relative position and importance. If such an explanation were given, there would be far less captiousness on the part of hon. Members in discussion, and far greater facility for the Government to make progress with the Estimates than could be expected as matters now stood, for the existing system of antagonism to the progress of the Estimates was almost entirely due to the want of explanation of the details of those Estimates. Now, to turn for a moment to the Supplementary, and run through the principal items. There was a sum of £41,000 for the new Courts of Justice above the sum voted last year; £69,000 for Public Offices, £47,000 for the purchase of Winchester House, and £21,000 for providing Consular Buildings abroad and a house for the Embassy at Rome. There was an increase in the Estimates of the Treasury and Foreign Office of £10,000, of the Board of Trade £10,000, of the Local Government Board £10,000. In Class 5 there was an increase of £56,000 for the Diplomatic Service, and the Consular Service in South Africa, so that including the remainder of the charges, the grand total of the Supplementary Estimates under the head of
  1026
  Civil Service and Revenue for the year, was £545,000; and that large figure of itself was a sufficient justification for asking why it had not been the practice to give proper explanation to the House and the country of the large expenditure under that head, before the House was asked to consider the items in detail. But there was another reason for the practice now recommended. When the House went into Committee, the proceedings were conducted on strict rules which prevented a Member from discussing general policy on particular items of expenditure, and it was desirable that hon. Members should have explanation not of the particular sum under each Vote, but of the policy of administration which guided the Department in the matter. There had been no such thing on the records of the House hitherto, and it was quite time that some such plan as that now proposed should be adopted. Again, it was not quite certain whether the total estimated expenditure under the head of Civil Service and Revenue Department for the ensuing year — £21,750,000—would cover the whole amount that would be required. Additional Estimates would be put forward in the course of the year, probably to the extent of some £230,000—a much lower figure than that taken for some years past. The total of the Civil Service and Revenue Estimates might therefore be calculated to amount, in round numbers, to £22,000,000, or to a proportion of from one-third to one-fourth of the total expenditure of the country. Was not this fact sufficient to prove the desirability of the course recommended? There were several increases requiring explanation—for instance, in the Law Department he found an additional expense in the Bankruptcy Court of £12,000, and for police stations scattered through the whole country £52,000. There was an increase in the Administration of Law and Justice of £90,000; an increase in the Vote for Education, and in the Colonial, Consular, and Foreign services, but on the other side it might be said there was a decrease in the Vote for the Stationery Office of £319,000—this decrease however he feared was more imaginary than real, inasmuch as it might be converted into an increase by some hon. Gentleman moving for Returns and thus putting the country to expense—a result

  1027
  which he apprehended all the more as he found that an hon. Friend of his had caused over £1,000 to be laid out in that way during the last year; and inasmuch also as in nearly every previous year there had been a large Supplemental Estimate under this head. There was, therefore, some justification for asking that a proper explanation of that expenditure should be given by one of the Members of the Government before the House was invited to consider the items in detail. Such explanation was suggested by a variety of facts, which he had alluded to, showing an increase or a decrease, in the Estimates before the House—such an explanation as it was impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give in his annual Financial Statement; but which the Secretary to the Treasury could give in what might be called "The Annual Civil Service Statement," on behalf of the Government. If such a course were adopted he believed the result would be at once to afford valuable information to hon. Members and the country, and to facilitate the progress of Business. On the whole, it appeared to him that it was not right for the House of Commons, who had the control of the public money, to vote away carelessly and without proper investigation these large sums of money for this vast expenditure, and it was for that reason he brought forward his Motion. It might be objected that there were plenty of "statements" already, but the answer to that was that this great expenditure of £22,000,000—so large a proportion of the whole expenditure of the country—demanded attention from the House and the country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
  MR. RYLANDS,in seconding the Amendment, said, he thought that they were indebted to the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) for having brought the question under their notice, as under the present arrangement there was a danger of a good deal of expenditure in the Civil Service being incurred without sufficient consideration. If the suggestion of the hon. Member were acted upon, it would operate as a check upon expenditure of a carelessly extravagant character. They ought to be informed by the Secretary of the Treasury of the special reasons justifying any increase of expenditure in the various Departments before going into Committee
  1028
  of Supply. Proposals involving any great increase of expenditure ought to be fully discussed, and the necessity for vigilance in keeping down expenditure was especially necessary at the present time, as he thought that a grave charge might be very fairly made against the Government, that they had made a practice of exceeding their Estimates to a. much more serious extent than their Predecessors. Besides the Supplementary Estimates, amounting to above £500,000 for the Civil Service, he feared there might be large excesses for the Army and Navy over the Budget Expenditure, as estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If so, that would make the Budget Speech of the right hon. Gentleman a farce, and the House would not be able to rely upon it in future. The Chancellor of the Exchequer when he brought forward his Budget calculated that the 1 d. which he was about to add to the income tax would not only make good the deficiency of revenue as compared with the estimated expenditure, but would give him at the end of the financial year a surplus of £380,000; but that anticipated surplus would be more than swallowed up by the Supplementary Estimates for Civil Service alone.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is desirable that proper explanation should be given by a Member of the Government before the House is asked to consider the Civil Service Estimates,"—(Mr. Goldsmid,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD ESLINGTONthought his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) had done a valuable public service by bringing this matter forward. Sitting where he did he need hardly say that his remarks were not made in any spirit of hostility to Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, he was of opinion that a debate of this kind was calculated to strengthen the hands of any Government, because if there were any branch of the public expenditure over which that House had, and ought to have, control, it was the expenditure on the Civil Service. For his own part, he could not see any valid reason why the

  1029
  Civil Service Estimates should not be introduced to the notice of the House by the responsible Minister of the Crown, with an explanation similar to that which attended the introduction of the Estimates for the Naval and Military Expenditure. No argument as to the safety of the country could be made with reference to the Civil Service Estimates as might be made with reference to the Army and Navy. For the alarming growth of the Civil Service Estimates the House of Commons was mainly responsible, and therefore it was essential that hon. Members should carefully watch their increase. He thought sufficient care was not always bestowed by the Departments in framing the Estimates. As far as the Supplementary Estimates were concerned, they being in the nature of ex post facto demands, the supposed check of that House was a delusion, and they were things which hon. Members should very jealously watch and very closely challenge. The increase under the head of the Board of Trade he supposed was due to the passing of the Merchant Shipping Act. Therefore the Minister had nothing to do but to say" You insisted on our undertaking this duty, and you must pay for it." He pointed this out as an illustration of the way in which the action of the House tended to swell the Civil Service Estimates. The mode in which these Estimates were now discussed and dealt with in Committee of Supply was a peddling one and unworthy of the House. If a full statement were made when they were brought forward, the House might then challenge them broadly, and with greater propriety and dignity than at present. As it was, there was much ground for some of the statements made by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he fully agreed with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Eslington) that his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) had done good service in bringing the matter before the House. He also thought the House was indebted to the noble Lord himself for the assistance which had been rendered to the discussion of it, and who very much undervalued his own services to the Public Accounts Committee. It might, perhaps, be objected that the subject was not a new one, and that some 20 years ago,
  1030
  when Mr. Wilson was Secretary to the Treasury, an attempt was made to bring the Civil Service Estimates at one view before the House, and that attempt was not regarded as a success. He trusted the Government would not object to the Motion, but if they objected on that ground, they should bear in mind the great difference existing between the Civil Service Estimates then and now. He was not quite sure whether the expenses of the Revenue Departments were at that time charged on Revenue or voted by Parliament. At any rate, these expenses required just as much watching as the Civil Service Estimates proper, and the amount of the latter Estimates had enormously increased. In 1852 the amount of the Civil Votes was £4,400,000. They rose slowly till, at the end of the Crimean War, they reached £6,000,000. They were now something like £22,000,000. Though it might not have been thought worth while to submit these Estimates at one view when they amounted to £4,000,000, the case was different now when they amounted to more than the Army or Navy Votes, and to nearly as much as the two put together were a few years ago. It would be of great public interest and advantage, therefore, to have from the Minister an explanation as full as was given with regard to the Army and the Navy. The Estimate which the House was now called upon to consider was a very large Supplementary Estimate indeed. The year before last the aggregate amount of Supplementary Estimate voted in the year of the original Estimate and before the 1st April of the following year was £527,000. Last year the aggregate was £532,000. This year it amounted to £756,000—namely, £211,000 voted in the year of the original Estimate and £545,000 in the present Session, and it was very much greater than anything of the kind that had been asked for before. On one occasion, during the late Administration, when the Supplementary Estimate was £252,000, the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty protested against what he called "illusory Estimates." If they were illusory when the supplemental Vote was £252,000, what must they be when it had risen to the present amount? Then, again, the circumstances of the financial year rendered it peculiarly

  1031
  necessary that before voting £545,000 they should first know whether they had the money. He said this, because it appeared from the weekly statement published by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that already at the end of the 11th month of the financial year there was a deficiency of £176,000 on the four principal sources of the public income—Customs, Excise, Stamps, and Taxes. It was true the Miscellaneous Receipts showed pretty well, but if upon a falling Revenue in other respects the House was called upon to vote this £545,000, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should tell the House how matters really stood, and whether there would be a sufficient amount of money in the Treasury to meet this drain. On the other hand, in addition to the present Supplementary Estimates, it appeared from the Appropriation Account for 1875-6, that there was an excess in Navy Expenditure which would have to be made good before the close of the financial year. They ought to be informed whether or not there was an excess in the Army Expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might possibly be able to show a saving upon other items, but he ought to explain the effect of so large an excess upon his Budget Estimates. There was another reason why a statement from the Minister as to civil expenditure, as a whole, was wanted. Formerly the House only received these Estimates piece - meal, some parts as late as in June or July. He (Mr. Childers) in 1866, for the first time, consolidated them in one book, and this was laid by him on the Table in that year before the end of February. He desired to compliment the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for having still more expedited the Civil Estimates; for he had, in point of time, beaten the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War, and was absolutely first in the race; and, having won that race, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would come forward triumphantly and give the House the satisfaction not only of seeing the whole of the Estimates laid on the Table at one time, but also of hearing a speech from him in explanation of them.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, this was a matter on which the House should review its own action. The House was responsible for the increase of these
  1032
  Estimates to four times the amount at which they stood 25 years ago. This enormous increase indicated a change in the administration and in the constitution of the country. He thought that now that the Civil Service Estimates were combined in one volume they should be referred to a Select Committee, so that individual Members of that House should not be dependent for their knowledge upon that which the Government thought fit to accord. In that way, the House would be able to learn what part of the policy which Parliament had adopted and sanctioned was responsible for that enormous increase.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he fully approved the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that the House should do something for itself in this matter, and not leave so much in the hands of the Government. He had himself been foolish enough one time to propose that the Estimates should be sent to a strong Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was then in office; but it was considered by several Members of the Government better to leave things as they were. It was all the same what Ministers were in power, hon. Members of the House were not allowed to know anything, for once comfortably seated on the Treasury Bench, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would give no more information than they could possibly help. He would like, however, that they should be masters of their own proceedings, and know something of what was done. He had tried to get some information about these matters, but it was of no use. No doubt some men of more ability had been more successful in their efforts, but it never came to much. The House, as a rule, did not care about finance; when the Estimates came on there was a general run of hon. Members out of the door, and anybody who interfered in the subject was voted a "bore." Neither, it seemed to him, did the public care, and when they saw an account of the proceedings in the newspapers next day they generally remarked that a good deal of the time of the House had been taken up to very little purpose, for that no saving of money had resulted. How could any good be done by individual

  1033
  Members against a Ministerial Bench well manned and amply provided with powder and shot? He had thought over this matter again and again very carefully, and the conclusion he had come to was that the only way in which the House could be master in this question was by sending the Estimates to a large Committee upstairs. He could not see the use of getting a speech from the Treasury Bench, as was proposed, on the subject of these Estimates, as right hon. Gentlemen would simply get up and give what they called an explanation, but it would be a mystification. The Supplementary Estimates were very large this year, and they were all for things that ought to have been foreseen and spoken of last year.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the question under debate was a very important one, and an attempt had been made by a Predecessor of his, who had with great advantage to the country filled the office he had now the honour to hold, to carry into effect the proposal now made by the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Gold-amid) for which the House was indebted to that hon. Gentleman. There was no observation more true than that successive Secretaries of the Treasury and Chancellors of the Exchequer would derive very great advantage from any amount of criticism on the Estimates presented for their consideration. But former Secretaries of the Treasury had to complain, as he now complained, and it was the great difficulty, that the economy of the House of Commons was so fitful, uncertain, and irregular in its application. Very frequently, too, the criticisms of hon. Members were applied to Estimates, the consequence of legislation which was forced upon successive Governments by public opinion and by individuals who influenced public opinion. In that way a certain policy was forced upon the country and upon Parliament, and the result was they were committed to a course of proceeding which involved very large expenditure, and for which subsequently the bill must be paid. His hon. Friend had asked the Government to give him a full explanation of the Civil Service Estimates, and had drawn attention to the very considerable increase in their amount from year to year. There was the greatest desire on his own part and on that of the Chancellor of the Exche-
  1034
  quer that that information should be granted; but it was not wise that they should disguise the difficulties which surrounded a statement of this kind. The Votes comprised in the Civil Service Estimates were 150 in number, and they travelled over seven different classes. They began with Public Works; they went on to deal with the Public Offices, Police, Education, the Diplomatic Service, and Superannuation Allowances, and Miscellaneous, Special, and Temporary Objects, and concluded with the Revenue Departments and Postal Services. He thought he need only refer to the experience of his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) when he said it would require a very lengthy speech to do full justice to the circumstances in which it was necessary for the Government to ask Parliament for an increase in every Department over the Estimates of the previous year. But all he could say on behalf of himself was that an effort should be made to comply with the spirit of the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman, and with what appeared to be the general desire of the House. He thought he should best consult the convenience of the House if he did not deal at any length with some of the remarks of his hon. Friend. He would reserve himself for another opportunity if he might say so. But reference had been made to the largeness of these Supplementary Estimates. He must ask his right lion. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) and the House to recognize the great zeal of the permanent officers of the Treasury who had assisted him in the preparation of these Estimates. Though those officers were thoroughly loyal to every Government, and it was by their assistance that he was enabled to lay Estimates on the Table a few months earlier than usual, yet he would remind the House there must necessarily be less foresight than if they were presented in April. He did not apologize for the Supplementary Estimates. It was the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to submit Estimates which he believed would be sufficient for the purpose; but, on the other hand, it was not his duty to make allowance for contingencies which he had not fully in view and which he did not believe would require expenditure. No doubt the largest demand of the Government

  1035
  was for Public Works, but they would explain themselves. It would be seen that they had been obliged to ask for a large additional Vote for the Courts of Justice. It would be recollected that towards the end of last Session he stated that he would have to ask for a further sum early this Session, if he found greater energy used by the contractor in order to forward the work. He thought his lion. Friend would recollect that he distinctly gave notice of the probability of that demand. There was also a large sum for the purpose of providing further accommodation for the War Department. He thought there were very few hon. Members who were not aware of the difficulty of the War Department at the present time and who would not admit that the Government were compelled to find accommodation to relieve that Department from the present crowding of clerks and servants. There was also a Vote of £59,000 for the purchase of land in Great George Street and King Street, but his right hon. Friend would explain that. With regard to the other items in the account, he hoped the House would allow him to explain them when the House went into Committee. They were very numerous. Some of the items would be explained by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. J. Lowther); £30,000 would be asked for the suppression of the Slave Trade. That item was explained in the Estimates themselves. He would not now detain the House, but when these Estimates were arrived at he would be happy to give satisfactory information with regard to them.
  MR. DODSONsaid, it was desirable that, as far as possible, expenditure should be submitted in one Estimate at the commencement of the year, and it should be as exact as possible. He had drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer two years ago to the growing tendency of these Supplementary Estimates for the Civil Service. Within the last few years they had increased considerably. In 1870-1 they amounted to £447,000; in 1871-2 to £419,000; in 1872-3 to £298,000; in 1873-4, when there was a change of Government, to £648,000; in 1874-5 to £1,267,000, but £500,000 of this sum was paid over in aid of local rates; in 1875-6 to
  1036
  £597,000; while in 1876-7, as far as they knew, they amounted to no less than £762,000. This was a question quite distinct from that of amount of expenditure. It was a question of care and accuracy in framing the Estimates for the year, and of firmness in adhering to them. Some Supplementary Estimates were almost inevitable, but they should discourage the growing tendency of these Estimates as much as possible.
  MR. DILLWYNbelieved that the practice of surrendering balances into the Exchequer explained to some extent the increase of Supplementary Estimates. He, therefore, complained not so much of the Supplementary Estimates as of the amount of the Estimates in gross. The Revenue did not increase to the same extent as the Expenditure, and if that state of things continued, everybody could see what the result would be. He strongly recommended that a small Committee should be appointed which should sit upstairs and check the Estimates with the Government. It was impossible for private Members to criticize them with any effect when they were introduced in the House.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERthought that the division of responsibility between the Government and a Committee sitting upstairs would hardly recommend itself to the prudence of the House, neither would it answer in its working. He wished, however, to put a question to the Government on a particular point —namely, why the Report of a Committee appointed by the Queen to inquire into the condition of the War Office and the Horse Guards had not been laid on the Table, so as to enable the House to judge whether those buildings were or were not in a fit state for habitation?
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURmaintained that if the various annual Estimates were drawn out with that careful exactness which ought to follow from an accurate acquaintance with the requirements of the several Services, there would be no necessity for having Supplementary Estimates to anything like the extent to which they had been carried within the last seven years; and he regarded that practice as an indication of insufficient information and defective control on the part of the Government,

  1037
  as to whether the requirements of the public service, when the original Estimates were framed, had been duly attended to by the responsible Heads of Departments. It was clear upon the face of it, either that less money than was necessary to carry on the public service had been voted lastyear, orthat the House was now called on to provide funds for purposes which, in the main, could have been forseen or might have been postponed; and it would have been better had the difficulty been boldly faced either by increasing the grants when the original Estimates were prepared, or by refusing the requests in the Supplementary Estimates for more money. It was most objectionable to permit officers of the Government, nominally under the control of the Treasury and of that House, to spend money in excess of the sums voted, and then to come to this House in the last month of the year to grant additional funds, and thus constrain the House of Commons to recognise the exercise of a power which was quite illegal. They ought to have an inquiry of a very stringent nature made whenever they had a Supplementary Estimate placed before the House. At the time that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) was Chancellor of the Exchequer Supplementary Estimates were rare. Unhappily a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University (Mr. Lowe) of the necessity for Supplementary Estimates had, he feared, led to the Departmental Heads making out these additional money demands to a greater extent than in former years. He deprecated in the strongest manner throwing on the Secretary of the Treasury the sole responsibility for explaining the Civil Service expenditure. This was a task too great for any one mind to perform. He held that the Vice President of the Council should explain the Educational Estimates; and the Under Secretaries of State for the Colonies and Foreign Affairs those relating to the Colonial and Diplomatic Services; the Chancellor of the Exchequer those of the Revenue Departments; that the Chief Commissioner of Works ought to give an account of the expenditure of his Department; the Postmaster General, in turn, should give a similar account, explaining to the House the details of the extensive
  1038
  and varied operations of his office; and so on through the different Departments. He also thought there should be, instead of a verbal explanation, a printed statement from each Department of the variations in the proposed expenditure on each Service, giving those minute details which require to be carefully studied at leisure in order to be properly understood. Without it the Estimates might in some respects be liable to misinterpretation, and appear on audit to be falsified on account of the difficulty of deciding as to the exactness of the appropriation of each particular sum for the specific Service to which it applied. But the greatest and best remedy was the appointment of a Select Committee to examine the details and arrangement of the Estimates, and the explanations furnished; not with a view to relieve the Treasury of any responsibility; but rather to see that the Treasury had done their duty in controlling the expenditure and supervising the arrangements of the Estimates.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that at least three questions had been raised in the course of that discussion. First, that some Minister of the Crown should make a general statement in regard to the Civil Service Estimates, as was done in connection with those applying to the Army and to the Navy; secondly, and it was not a new proposal, there was an argument as to the propriety or impropriety of having Supplementary Estimates; and, thirdly, a point which had been briefly raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) was as to whether they were in a financial position this year to vote that sum of money. On that he must respectfully decline to be drawn into giving by anticipation something very like a Budget speech; and although he might state that the Revenue had not been coming in under certain heads as satisfactorily as he had hoped, yet there were, on the other hand, several compensations. Therefore, he would not now take up that challenge further than to say that he had no reason to doubt that when they came to the end of the year they would be able to present a very fair result for the year; and as regarded those Supplementary Estimates they had reason to expect savings, and considerable savings. Then, with.

  1039
  respect to Supplementary Estimates generally, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) put the case fairly when he said that if they adhered to the principle of surrendering every year the balance upon the Votes taken, they could not altogether avoid having Supplementary Estimates. No human being could well foresee at the beginning of the year everything that would come into the expenditure in the course of the year. When formerly they had the power of carrying over what was not spent in one year on a Vote to another, they might have been independent of such Supplementary Estimates by always keeping a balance in hand; but now the system, with the approval of the House, had been altered. Either provision must be made by Supplementary Estimates for unexpected expenditure, or the Government must ask at the beginning of the year for more than they wanted, which he was sure the House would agree with him in thinking was an objectionable course to adopt. A Minister who had £100,000 more at his disposal than he actually required, would be more likely to spend that sum than if he had the prospect of a Supplementary Estimate before his eyes. Therefore, he did not disparage the remarks which had been made against Supplementary Estimates; on the contrary, he was glad to hear them, and he could assure the House that the Government were anxious to avoid Supplementary Estimates as much as possible. It was no doubt true, to a certain extent, as had been shown by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), that the Supplementary Estimates of the present Government were heavier than those of their Predecessors. For that, however, their Predecessors were in some degree responsible, having incurred liabilities for which they had not made sufficient provision. Another reason for the increase was that new services had been undertaken the exact expense of which it was not easy to estimate. In all these matters, however, inquiry was necessary and useful, and it would even be well if some hon. Member in the course of the Session would call attention to the growth of Civil Service expenditure. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) he would say that although it was
  1040
  plausible enough, it was doubtful whether it would really work well. He did not say it was not worth trying; but, at any rate, it was an experiment that required careful consideration. Indeed, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) and he would consult together to see whether the experiment could be made. They had, of course, a general knowledge of the demands made on the public purse, and no doubt it would be possible for them to indicate where the excess and where the decrease under the various heads were to be found. But such a statement, he thought it right to say, could not go very deep, ranging as it would do from the construction of buildings to our colonial policy, and the Secretary to the Treasury in attempting it might put the House into a somewhat inconvenient position. Any satisfactory discussion would be impossible on so shallow and superficial a statement as the one in question would necessarily be. But it was said the House did not want to enter into a discussion, but to have a general view of the financial situation, discovering the nature of the Estimates. Well, that was an object which could be better attained by a printed statement than by speeches in that House, and his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would this year, as he had done last, prepare a Paper showing in a convenient form the amount of the Civil Service expenditure, together with the Estimates of the Revenue Department for the past and coming years. He might add that his hon. Friend would also endeavour, in moving the Civil Service Estimates of the year, to make some general statement such as that suggested, though, of course, he would not be able to go very minutely into certain Votes. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Rochester would not press the Resolution, and that he would allow the House to go into Committee.
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that after the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1876–7.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £12,337, Public Buildings.
MR. RAMSAYcalled attention to the charge of £50 made in connection with Broadmoor Lunatic Asylum, and expressed an opinion that the question as to the future of that Institution ought properly to come on for discussion in connection with the Prisons Bill. The Report recently laid on the Table was made to show that Broadmoor was perfect, but the fact was that criminal lunatics cost double there what they did in other prisons. He hoped that hon. Members generally would receive the Report before they concluded the consideration of the Prisons Bill.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that in fulfilment of the pledge he had given last Session he had caused an inquiry to be made by a Departmental Committee with regard to Broadmoor and that a Report very strongly in its favour had been the result. At the same time, there were one or two Papers, which would be published with the Report, taking great exception to Broadmoor in its present state. The Report was already on the Table of the House, and he would do all he could to hurry on the printing and distribution of it. Meanwhile, he would suggest that the proper time to discuss the question as to Broadmoor would be when the Estimate relating to the Asylum came before the Committee.
MR. CHILDERSinquired generally with regard to the Supplemental Estimates, whether they would add to the total actual charge under the Civil Service Estimates, or whether there would be savings to set against them?
MR. W. SMITH,in reply, said, the savings would be considerable, but he could not at present say what they would amount to.
SIR ANDREW LUSKcalled attention to the explanation in the Estimates with regard to the Vote—namely, "various unforeseen special works of a costly character have become necessary during the year." He asked what they were, and why they had not been foreseen?
MR. ADAMalso asked for an explanation.
MR. GERARD NOEL,in reply, enumerated a number of special works.
SIR ANDREW LUSKcomplained that what had passed did not reach hon. Members who were sitting a short distance from the Table.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £4,200, Furniture of Public Offices.
MR. JAMESasked why £743 had been expended on the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury, and £1,376 on that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, buildings that could not be expected to remain standing for very long. With regard to the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury, there had been a considerable outlay upon it when the present Government came into office, and he wished to know how it was that an additional expenditure of such a large amount had already become necessary?
MR. MONKobjected to the expenditure of £500 on the new Offices of the Charity Commissioners. The House on a former occasion affirmed the principle that the Charity Commission should be carried on without expense to the taxpayers, and he wished to know why it had not been acted upon?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the idea of going to live at his official residence in Downing Street had never occurred to him till the close of last Session, when it became necessary to make different arrangements in consequence of the retirement from the House of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and it became evident to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that it would be impossible to carry on the business of his office, living at a distance from it, without great inconvenience to himself and others. As to the furniture of the residence, the principle on which it should be dealt with had been settled a good many years ago, when his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) lived in it, when it was arranged that the furniture should be provided by the Office of Works, and that each succeeding occupant, on leaving, should be charged the difference between the value of the furniture when he came in and when he went out. He might add that while his right hon. Friend resided there the new Foreign and Colonial Offices

1043
were in course of construction. The old Colonial Office having been pulled down, and it having been found necessary to make some temporary structural arrangements for the accommodation of clerks, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave up the use of his house for the purpose. When, however, the new offices were finished the clerks left, the house became vacant, and it became, of course, necessary to go to some expense to remove the temporary erections and render the house fit for living purposes. As to the houses having been practically condemned, he could only say that they were in the position of threatened men who were said to live long, for although the time would, no doubt, come when they would have to be swept away, he was informed that many persons were willing to take them on long leases and to give large sums for them, on the prospect of their continuing to stand for a considerable time.
SIR ANDREW LUSKasked for an explanation of the item of £400 for the Treasury Solicitor's office.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he fully concurred with the hon. Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. Monk) as to the expediency of securing a sufficient income from the funds of the charities to meet the expenses of the Charity Commission, and if the hon. Gentleman would produce a scheme which would be acceptable to the country, he could assure him it would receive the best attention of the Government. In reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury, he had to state that the duties of Solicitor to the Treasury had of late considerably increased, and that it had, in consequence, been found necessary to provide in his office additional accommodation.
In reply to Mr. JAMES,
MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that the furniture in two or three of the rooms in the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury was in a very dilapidated state, but that there had been no extravagant expenditure in restoring or replacing it.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £3,440, Houses of Parliament.
MR. ADAMremarked that full explanations ought to be given as to why there was such an increase in the expense incurred in the ordinary mainte-
1044
nance and repair of the Houses, and as to the special works, the necessity for which was, according to the Papers be- fore the House, not apparent when the original estimates were framed. The original Vote amounted to £7,583.
MR. GERARD NOELexplained. Amongst other items there was £105 for the "prison in the House." £30 had been expended on the Ladies' Gallery. Other sums had been expended upon the division bells, the Victoria Tower, the repair of the pinnacles of, after the squall in January, which cost £350, the Serjeant-at-Arms' house, and rooms for the Members of the Government. £1,000 of the sum which the House was asked to vote was excess in ordinary maintenance and repair.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERcomplained that, notwithstanding the newspaper paragraphs which appeared every February announcing extensive embellishments and improvements in the Houses of Parliament, nothing was ever seen by hon. Members which would account for the expenditure, which he believed was greater than need be incurred. There was a great deal of money wasted on public buildings; private individuals were able to get their work done cheaper than the Office of Works.
MR. RYLANDSsuggested that there should in future be an Appendix to the Estimates, giving the particulars of any additional expenditure that might be proposed. How long a time had elapsed since anyone had been committed to the prison room? Until that moment he had not been aware of the existence of such a place.
MR. GERARD NOELsaid, no one had been committed to the prison room for many years; fact, since 1848.
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas of opinion that some of the Votes were not of so urgent a nature that they might not very well be postponed till next year. Such was the case, for instance, with respect to the prison, which, it appeared, had not been occupied for a long time, and the oak panel in the Dining-room.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, his noble Friend had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Vote for £600 for the oak panelling in the Dining-room could not be postponed. He also wished to know whether the Dining-room Committee had been consulted on the matter?
MR. GERARD NOELsaid, the expenditure had been authorized by his Predecessor in office.
MR. ADAMsaid, he had never heard that £600, or any other sum, was to be spent on the decorations of the Dining-room. If such a sum were to be expended at all, he thought it might be applied to a more useful purpose.
SIR ANDREW LUSKcomplained that sums were asked for executing "certain special works," and expressed a hope that more precise information would be given.
MR. GERARD NOELpromised that a more detailed statement should be given next year.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) £3,524, New Home and Colonial Offices.
(5.) £1,490, National Gallery Enlargement.
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, he wished to be informed whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to proceed at once with the extension of the National Gallery; whether it would be necessary to purchase more ground; and whether proper precautions had been taken to preserve the building from the risk of fire?
MR. GERARD NOELwas of opinion that there was at present ample accommodation in the National Gallery, and there was as yet no intention on the part of the Government to enlarge the building. Precautions had been taken against fire, and he believed the whole of the ground required had been purchased; but he was not able to give a positive answer at present upon the point.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £1,800, Harbeurs, &c., under the Board of Trade.
MR. SHAW - LEFEVREinquired whether the amount under the Vote, £1,200, covered the damage done to Dover Harbour by the late storm? He also wished for an explanation respecting the purchase of land in connection with Harwich Harbour?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYregretted to state that the estimate for Dover Harbour was only a temporary one, pending the report of the civil engineer. As soon as the storm had taken place Sir John Hawkshaw was sent down to Dover to report; but he
1046
declined to do so, on the ground that it was impossible for him to make any accurate estimate of the damage during the present season of the year. Consequently it was impossible to insert in the Estimate for the current year the total expense of restoring the pier to its former condition. In Harwich Harbour works were going on which rendered necessary the acquisition in 1866 of the land referred to, certain expenses in respect of which had now to be met.
MR. WHITWELLasked whether any, enlargement of Dover Harbour, apart from repairs, would be made by the right hon. Gentleman's own authority, without the plans being submitted to Parliament?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Certainly not.
Vote agreed to.
(7.) £40,975, New Courts of Justice and Offices.
MR. ADAMpresumed this Estimate was due to the judicious threat made by the Secretary to the Treasury last year, that in case the contractors did not proceed properly with their work he would enforce penalties upon them. It would be interesting to the Committee to know what progress had been made, and when they might look for the completion of the work.
MR. GERARD NOELsaid, he had been over the whole building with Mr. Street, the architect, who showed that the works were going on very favourably. It was expected that the eastern portion of the building would be completed by the end of the year.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERprotested against the designs of the building so far as they had gone. They comprised, in his opinion, the worst specimens of modern Gothic that could be found. There was a large number of small carvings on all sides of the building. They covered a very large surface, and cost an enormous sum of money. They professed to be ornamental; but; in his view, they were not really so. He hoped that the First Commissioner of Works would go over the building and endeavour to diminish the number of these so-called ornaments.
MR. CHARLEYhoped that the Government would press forward these buildings with all possible speed.
MR. GERARD NOELsaid, the Committee might depend upon it that the Government would do all in its power to expedite the work. As to the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), the elevation was settled, and nothing was so costly as to make alterations in a design once in progress. He could not therefore undertake to make any change.
Vote agreed to.
(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £60,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Acquisition of Land and Houses as a Site for Public Offices."
MR. MUNDELLAasked how much of this sum was for the payment of the site at present occupied by the Canada Government Buildings, in King Street, Westminster? A werse built or more inconvenient building, he thought, could hardly be devised.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, a Vote of £30,000 had been taken last Session, and now a Supplementary Vote of £69,000 was asked for the same purpose. He wished to know whether there was such an immediate necessity for the purchase of this land as to require a Supplementary Estimate instead of being included in the Estimates for the coming year?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the negotiations with regard to the purchase happened before the present First Commissioner of Works entered upon his office. The Government had the offer of the Canada Government Buildings under circumstances, which rendered their prompt decision necessary to the purchase. The value of the property was fixed by arbitration—namely, £49,629. The property, which covered a large space of ground, formed a large contribution towards the completeness of the plan of the Government Offices. There were other premises purchased for the same purpose—namely, those at No. 23, Great George Street, the value of which was fixed by arbitration at £19,771. In both cases it was a necessary condition of purchase that the sum should be paid during the present financial year.
MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the greater part of the expense incurred was not for the land, but for the buildings which stood upon it. Canada Buildings were almost new buildings, and they proved one of the worst purchases ever made by the Government. He did not think the property was worth a third of the money they had paid for it.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that Canada Buildings had been purchased as a site for offices, it being covered with old and poor buildings which would have to be replaced. If the Government had waited until the buildings had been pulled down and replaced by others of greater value' the price would have been higher.
MR. CHILDERSasked, whether the Government regarded this purchase as the beginning of a scheme for purchasing the whole block of buildings down to Great George Street?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, various proposals had been made at different times for effecting the purpose referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and last year the Government brought in a Bill for the purpose. Notice of that Bill having been given, a deputation of the inhabitants of the district made strong remonstrances on the subject, and it was clear that very heavy expenditure would have to be incurred in purchasing the property if it were to be bought by compulsory purchase, as part of a great scheme. The Government did not think it was necessary to proceed with the work at the time, and they therefore abandoned the Bill, although they were not prepared to say it might not in time be desirable to carry out the work. In the meantime, certain small portions of the property had been offered for sale, and that fact having been brought under the notice of the Government, they thought it would be wise to purchase houses or buildings on the spot when opportunities occurred. If they did not do so, as he had before observed, buildings of a more expensive kind might be erected in their place, and thus the price of the property might be greatly enhanced if it should be determined hereafter to extend the public offices to Great George Street. The property which the Government had purchased would be valuable, even if it should not be wanted for the purpose of

1049
public offices. Having obtained it under arbitration, they had given no higher price for it than anybody else would have given.
MR. MUNDELLAthought the right hon. Gentleman could not know Canada Buildings. He must again say they were not old houses, but new offices, and of the very best description.
MR. RYLANDSprotested against Parliament being committed to this large expenditure before it had been consulted upon the subject. It would have been much fairer if the Government had proceeded with their Bill and challenged the opinion of the House on the subject. Every plot the Government bought raised the value of the remainder of the property.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREwas of opinion that the course adopted by the Government was unwise.
Question put.
The Committee divided: — Ayes 96; Noes 61: Majority 35.
(9.) £47,000, Purchase of Winchester House.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERobserved from a Note appended to this Estimate that the above "sum was required to enable the Commissioners of Public Works to purchase Winchester House, situated in St. James's Square, for the accommodation of the War Department." That raised a very important question—namely, whether it was desirable to continue the War Office and the Horse Guards on the present site. Two Committees had, he believed, condemned in strong terms the condition of the buildings of the War Office, and he objected to a valuable body of men having to do their work in premises which were in a state which was calculated to breed a pestilence. When the Reports of the two Committees to which lie had referred were on the Table, he thought he should be able to show that the War Office was not fit for human habitation. He believed the state of its foundations had caused sickness, misery, and in many cases even death to the persons employed there.
MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that as to the sanitary condition of the War Office, the hon. Baronet would be able to judge from the Report of the Committee, which would be laid upon the
1050
Table. But even if a new War Office had been decided upon, many years must elapse before it could be completed, and in the meantime the purchase of Winchester House would enable a considerable saving to be effected by the concentration of outlying departments, for the accommodation of which, at present, the Department was paying rent.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he did not object to a fair price being given for Winchester House if it was necessary for the public service; but it appeared to him that the principal object of this Vote was to provide funds for the new Bishopric of St. Albans. The price was far in excess of the highest bid offered at the attempted sale, and he should like to know upon what calculation the sum had been arrived at? Several Governments had had before them the question whether the extension of our public offices should be in the direction of Great George Street or in the direction of Pall Mall, or towards the Embankment, and he would suggest the appointment of a Committee or Commission to consider that question.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYadmitted that the present War Office could never be made a decent and satisfactory place for the purpose, and justified the purchase of Winchester House in the meantime, on the ground that additional accommodation was required, not merely for those presently employed at the War Office, but with the view of bringing together those who were employed in outlying branches of the Office, such as Victoria Street and New Street, with which, as matters stood, it was very inconvenient to hold the necessary communication. If it was taken, they would at once save office rent to the amount of £1,675. He looked forward to the building at no distant date, of a new War Office more worthy of the country. That, however, was a matter of the future; the providing of additional accommodation was a matter of present necessity, the state of things at the present buildings being intolerable; and he believed that if they looked at it merely as a property investment Sir Henry Hunt had arranged the purchase of Winchester House on very favourable terms. He hoped the House would sanction the Vote.
MR. MUNDELLAurged, that as the existing War Office could never be made

1051
a decent place for the purpose, the proper course would be, not to go on buying houses for the business of the Department, but to set about erecting a new Office at once. It would cost some thousands of pounds simply to fit up Winchester House when they got possession of it.
GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURdeprecated the purchase of Winchester House, inasmuch as it would delay the obtaining of a proper building.
MR. GREGORYsaid, that hon. Members seemed to concur in the desirability of having a new War Office, but that could not be carried out just now, and as increased accommodation for War Office clerks was necessary, he thought the purchase of Winchester House was desirable. It had been purchased at ' what he believed to be a fair price, and if they wanted to sell it at some future time it would fetch nearly the price now given, and probably more.
MR. CHILDERSagain wished to know whether the building had been put up for sale by public auction, and what was the highest genuine bid; also whether the Government would at once take up the question as to the direction which the extension of the public buildings should take—whether it should be in the direction of Great George Street or that of Pall Mall.
MR. WHITWELLthought it was desirable to set about building a new War Office immediately, and that additional expenditure for accommodation should be authorized only on that understanding. The present building was not only unhealthy, but inconvenient and costly in the working of business; the labour saved would pay much of the new expenditure. He reminded the Government that there was a large available space for building purposes in the neighbourhood of the India House.
MR. MOWBRAYremarked that the reason Winchester House did not last year realize the value which was placed upon it was that there happened to be at the time it was put up four houses for sale in St. James's Square. Having had an opportunity of considering the subject on the side of the vendor, although he was not in a position to state the highest bid for Winchester House, he could tell what was the reserve price. The reserve price was £50,000, and that was considerably below the re-
1052
serve price which the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on very competent advice, fixed in 1875. He thought the Government had selected a very fortunate time for the purchase, and had made that purchase on judicious terms. Considering its large extent, the good frontage, the valuable character of the building, and the fact that it covered an area exceeding a quarter of an acre of ground, he was of opinion that the Government had made a good investment.
MR. MUNDELLAtrusted that the Government would be content with their bargain, and not spend more money on the house, but put it into the market and proceed with the building of a new War Office.
MR. GREGORYexpressed approval of the purchase and disapproval of the proposal to appoint a Commission.
MR. MUNTZ, in the interests of public business, advised the building of a new Office.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £3,000, Light Houses Abroad.
MR. MACDONALDwished to know what sort of a fog-horn it was contemplated to erect off Cape Race (the purpose for which the Vote was asked), whether it was one of the more modern fog-horns, and at what distance it could be heard?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, the fog-horn it was proposed to erect was one of the most recent and approved description. It was impossible for him to say at what distance it could be heard, but he believed it would be heard two or three miles against the wind. A great deal would depend, of course, on the state of the atmosphere and the di·rection of the wind.
MR. MACDONALDdesired to know whether it was a steam fog-horn?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYbelieved that it was blown by steam.
Vote agreed to.
(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £21,180, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for British Embassy Houses and Legation and Consular Buildings."
MR. RYLANDSsaid, that this Vote was put down as being—

1053
"required for the purchase of Baron Reinach's house as a residence for Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, together with an adjoining strip of land in the Via Palestro."
It might be supposed from that that this was the whole sum required for the residence; but in the Estimates of the present year a further sum of £12,000 was demanded to complete the purchase and for the alterations of the Embassy house. He objected to the Vote. The rent which had been paid for the Embassy house hitherto was £1,200 a-year. and in his opinion it was better to continue to pay this sum, than to enter into an indefinite expenditure in the purchase of a house. He would give an instance of what had occurred in a similar case. In 1843 a first Vote of £10,000 was taken for an Embassy house at Constantinople. That expenditure went on, and up to 1869 we had spent on the Embassy house at Constantinople, for building and in alterations a sum of no less than £150,226. This property was destroyed by fire through the gross neglect of those who had charge of it. In Paris during these 25 years the Embassy house had cost £77,749. In every year the charges for these Embassy houses were marvellous. It seemed as though the moment a building belonged to the Crown, it became the means of livelihood to a number of persons—architects, builders, furnishers, and others, who fastened upon it. In his opinion the more economical plan was to rent Embassy houses, and allow Ambassadors so much on account of rent. He hoped the Committee would resist this Vote—first, because it was bad policy to buy Embassy houses at all; secondly, because the Government had asked for a Supplementary Vote apart from the ordinary Estimates, for which there was not the least justification; and, lastly, because the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary had laid the Estimate on the Table in such terms as would mislead the Committee, inducing them to suppose it was the entire sum wanted, whereas it was only the beginning.
SIR. H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, pointed out that the £21,000 now wanted was for the completion of the purchase, and the £12,000 referred to he believed was put down for work to be done to the house after that event. The site was specially well adapted for the purpose of an Embassy house. It was a
1054
very valuable house, and he thought it of great importance that in every capital the British Embassy should be in one fixed place, instead of relying upon hired houses in different localities. He hoped the Committee would ratify the purchase, which would, he believed, be for the public advantage.
MR. BOURKEsaid, that, although he had no objection to accept the responsibility, the Estimate now under consideration was one which should be accounted for by the Office of Works, and not by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. An arrangement had been made last year—though he did not think it a very good arrangement—by which certain houses were to be put under the Office of Works, and others under the Foreign Office. That arrangement had been tacitly sanctioned by the House, and it was no fault of his (Mr. Bourke) if the plan he had indicated had been carried into effect. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had hinted that Estimates of this description had been smuggled through the House; but he (Mr. Bourke) could truthfully say that in the course of the three years during which he had occupied his present position, he had never, upon any occasion, attempted to smuggle through a Vote. This very question of buying Embassy houses had been considered by a Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman to whom he referred was a Member; and, if he were not mistaken, that Committee had reported that it was desirable on all occasions to buy such houses. Such a policy was, in his opinion, a very economical one, or otherwise there would be increased charges through the constant tendency to increased rents in foreign capitals. At Rome the site now acquired was a very valuable one, in a capital situation. The present house was a very poor one, and unless something had been done, Sir Augustus Paget must leave it for another house where there would be a large increase upon the sum now paid for rent, £1,200. By spending a sum which would represent £1,400 or £1,500 a-year, he believed a good arrangement would be made in the public interest. At the same time he must in candour admit that the sum now asked would not be sufficient, because, as the hon. Member had pointed out, there would be the furnishing. He thought, however, a

1055
very good bargain had in this case been made. With respect to the expense of the Embassy house at Constantinople, the present Government were not responsible for the whole of the expenditure incurred, and he could only say that he hoped they would be more fortunate than their Predecessors in making their purchases.
MR. DODSONcould not help thinking that if the Government speculated in purchasing houses in foreign capitals, they would be very likely to make bad bargains. The Embassy at Constantinople had been exceedingly expensive to build. It turned out to be badly built, and the repairs cost a very large sum indeed. The same thing might again happen, and he therefore believed it would be found much safer to rent premises for our Embassies.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFmust remind the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dodson) that the purchasing system was recommended by a Committee, and was begun by the late Government. The right hon. Gentleman himself (as Secretary to the Treasury) had purchased Embassy houses at Vienna and Washington.
DR. KENEALYconcurred in the opinion that £21,000 should not have been expended on the purchase of an Embassy house at Rome, when the finest palace there could, he believed, he hired for £1,000 a-year. Was it not the fact, he should like to know, that nearly all the Representatives of the great Powers accredited to this country resided in houses not purchased, but hired from year to year?
MR. WHITWELLsaid, the Vote was proposed to be taken in an irregular way, and in a manner opposed to the general practice of the House. He should oppose it, as he saw in it the beginning of further expenditure.
SIR ANDREW LUSKdesired to know why this Vote had been put into a Supplementary Estimate at all. He objected to vote money after the work was done, and then call it an "Estimate."
MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, it was not a Supplemental Estimate, but a Vote on Account. The Estimate was not sufficiently clear and full, and did not convey to the mind of any one reading it that it was a Supplemental Estimate without looking to the Estimates.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think it quite fair to call this a Vote on Account. So far as the transaction was concerned, it was a complete Vote for the purchase of a house, land, and garden. That was covered by £21,108. When they had got the house, some alterations would have to be made, which would amount to £12,000, and there would also be the cost of furnishing. It would be very inconvenient to insist that every expense incurred in such a matter must always be put in the main Estimates of the year. Such scrupulous particularity would very often cost the country a great deal of money. Proposals of this kind were looked upon by the Government with jealousy, for it must be admitted that the arguments against them were not without force. With regard, however, to the remark that Rome might cease to be the capital, there was not, in the opinion of the Government, much reason to expect that result. There was, of course, the possibility that a house which suited one family might not suit another, but there might at the same time be weighty considerations in favour of securing a permanent residence. For example, a house might at present be worth £1,000 a-year which a few years hence would bring £1,500 or £2,000. All that could be done was to weigh the probabilities, and, doing that in the present case, Government had come to the conclusion that the purchase would be a very good bargain, and on that account, they recommended it should be carried out.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, what was complained of was that the Government had not given them a full Estimate, and the House ought to know what they were going to vote for the purpose.
CAPTAIN NOLANmentioned that copies of the Supplementary Estimates seemed to be very scarce, for he and other hon. Members had not been able to get any, although they required them for the purpose of that discussion. Copies had, of course. been sent to the houses of hon. Members, but it was usual to count on being able to get others when they came to the House.
MR. W. H. SMITHexpressed regret at the scarcity and promised to communicate with the Speaker, with whom it rested to determine the number of copies that should be printed.
LORD ELCHOthought it hard on the present Government that hon. Members opposite, and in particular the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) should object to this expenditure on principle, when the policy on which it proceeded was one which had been recommended by a Select Committee appointed at the instance of a Liberal Government, and consisting of 22 Members, of whom 12 were Liberals, among whom were the hon. Member for Whitby (Mr. W. H. Gladstone), the then Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), and the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He referred to the Select Committee of 1871 on the Diplomatic and Consular Service, one of whose recommendations was—in the words of the Report—that it would be for the advantage of the public service to have permanent residences for the heads of the Embassies. It was rather a strong proceeding for hon. Members on the Opposition benches to turn round against the Government and blame them for following a course they had themselves advised. He should vote with the Government.
MR. DILLWYNasked whether it was the intention of the Government to proceed at present with these Estimates after what had been stated as to the impossibility of obtaining copies?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that really the hon. Member had the greatest genius for obstruction. Copies of the Estimates had been distributed to all hon. Members, and while it was a matter for regret that there were not others to be got, it must be assumed that they had made themselves acquainted with the contents of the Paper, and it was too much to ask that the Business of the House should be stopped because they had not brought their copies down with them.
MR. WHITWELLsaid, the scarcity arose from there being so large an attendance of hon. Members. Many hon. Members did not bring their copies with them, because they wanted to keep them for other years for reference, and they trusted to be able to obtain other copies at the House. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), he wished to say for his part that he did not object to the Vote on principle, but because there was no information before the Committee as
1058
to the gross sum which would be required.
MR. MACDONALDalso complained that copies were not to be had for the use of hon. Members.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 53: Majority 114.
(12.) £700, Treasury.
(13.) £10,810, Foreign Office.
MR. B. SAMUELSONpointed out that the commercial department of this Office wanted revision, and asked whether the appointment of the additional Assistant Under Secretary of State would effect that object, or whether his attention would be limited to the legal business of the Office?
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the Vote was required for the salary of an additional Assistant Under Secretary of State. As there had been a remodelling of the whole of the work of the Foreign Office, he should be glad to know whether the Memorandum would be laid before the House, in order that it might know whether the power and influence of the political Under Secretary of the Foreign Office had not been prejudicially diminished.
MR. HAYTERsaid, the Eastern negotiations would naturally cause an increase in the telegraph expenses, but the additional sum required—£8,5l0seemed excessive, and required explanation.
MR. JAMESsaid, that concurrently with the increase in the telegraph charges there had been an increase of £1,100 in the travelling expenses of messengers and couriers. He would like to hear the reason for that increase.
MR. BOURKEsaid, that the new arrangement of the Office had nothing to do with the commercial department. He had not seen the Memorandum to which allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), but there was a Minute which he did not think the House would care to see. The change made had been recommended by a Committee which sat last year to consider the subject, and had the effect of assimilating the practice of the Foreign Office to that which prevailed at the Colonial Office. With reference to the telegraphs, the enormous addition which had been necessarily

1059
made to the service last year had caused great expense. Each telegram sent to Turkey, to Russia, or other foreign countries was very costly, and a great number had frequently to be sent daily. The same observation applied to the item in respect of messages, there having been a larger number than usual despatched to the East.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFhoped that the Minute would be laid on the Table, as he believed that certain officials at the Foreign Office exercised their influence badly, and therefore he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow a Committee to be appointed to inquire into all the arrangements at the Foreign Office.
Vote agreed to.
(14.) £826, Colonial Office.
(15.) £15,796, Board of Trade.
MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, that the item they were now asked to vote was likely to be an annual charge under the Merchant Shipping Act, and was incurred in order that they might do for reckless and dishonest shipowners what prudent and honest shipowners did for themselves. As they were asked for such a large sum they should at least be satisfied that some good work was done for the money. There were 11 highly-paid gentlemen who were appointed to the principal ports to see that the Merchant Shipping Act was carried out, and from the result of personal visits made to many sea-ports during the Recess, he could not find that they had done anything at all. The impression on his mind was that these gentlemen regarded their salaries of £600 or £800 a-year as a pension to retire into private life rather than as salaries for which they were to do work. It was just possible that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade might have fuller and better information, and he (Mr. Plimsoll) would give him the opportunity of stating it. There were a few questions which he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, whether it had been an instruction to those highly-paid officers to see that the vessels were not overloaded, and whether they had been instructed to make a systematic examination of the load-line, and whether they had been told that in the event of the load-line not being sufficient they were
1060
to communicate with the owners. He was certain that if those instructions had been given they had been disregarded. Secondly, he would ask whether any instructions had been given to our Consuls in foreign ports to see that the load-lines of vessels were not submerged; thirdly, whether those gentlemen who had been appointed at large salaries had made a systematic examination of the 2,400 disclassed vessels, the names of which he sent to the Board of Trade at the close of last Session, together with the dates they were last examined. In some cases 8, 10, and 11 years had elapsed. Were any means adopted to see that these chief surveyors did anything for their money? There was an item for £600 for survey in foreign ports of vessels with grain cargoes, and it did not seem to be large considering the beneficial result of such regulations; but it was to be regretted and he should like to know why the examination of ships was not carried out in more ports. He believed the outlay had produced most beneficial results, and that the country would not grudge a much larger sum.
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYsaid, he was sure the Committee would be very glad to see that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had not relaxed in his vigilance upon this subject. He seemed to complain of the expense under the Act of last year, but the principle of the Act—namely, that officers of the Board of Trade should watch that vessels did not leave port improperly loaded—must have been a much cheaper plan than the plan of the hon. Member—that the Government should undertake the survey of every ship which left these shores. As to the question whether the 1G (not 11) principal Inspectors or Surveyors had "done anything for their money," the hon. Member must on this point have been less vigilant than usual, or he would have seen a Return lately laid on the Table, which showed exactly what they had been doing during the three months since the passing of the Act. These gentlemen had done a great deal, and from every quarter of the Kingdom he had received from shipowners unanimous testimony to the activity of these officers and the tact as well as efficiency with which they had performed their duties. He could not exactly state the number of ships they had detained, still

1061
less the number they had prevented from leaving port overloaded or improperly loaded. But one fact was significant, that of the ships they had detained as unseaworthy, several were ships classed at different offices, including Lloyd's. This fact was also so far satisfactory that it showed the House did not go far wrong in passing the Act in the shape it was passed last year. The hon. Member asked whether the Surveyors marked the owner's load-line of every ship which left this country. Whenever a ship was detected starting with her load-line below smooth water, it was the duty of the Surveyors to report; but he could not undertake to say that they had recorded the load-line of every ship leaving this country, still less that this was done in the case of British vessels loading abroad. Such a task would be impossible, and even dangerous. As to the stowage of grain cargoes abroad, the Reports which reached him were as satisfactory as could be expected, and the number of ports from which these Reports came was ample. The hon. Member seemed to think that the £600 which appeared in the Estimate for watching the stowage of grain cargoes covered the whole year, whereas it was only for three months, and the estimated cost of the whole year was £2,000. The list of disclassed vessels supplied by the hon. Member had been carefully looked into and considered.
MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he could not concur with the right hon. Gentleman as to the success of the working of the Act, and he regarded the appointments of these Inspectors as having been unwisely made. He considered they had not done their work as efficiently as they ought. The general question, however, could not be discussed on the Supplementary Estimates, otherwise he should be prepared to do so. The country did not receive anything like the benefit it ought to receive from the large expenditure incurred.
MR. D. JENKINSasked if the 50 per cent of the vessels stopped were unseaworthy?
SIR CHARLES ADDERLEYreplied, that he had not so stated.
MR. CHILDERScalled the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the result of taking the Vote in the present form. We should be actually adding to the aggregate vote far more than was
1062
required, instead of showing the increase on the item and abating the savings on others within the Vote. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should in future refer such matters to the Committee on Public Accounts for their consideration. It was not right that the Estimates should be thus swelled.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this was a technical question, but it ought to be looked to. Under ordinary circumstances the Government would not have introduced the Vote, but here it was necessary.
MR. NORWOODremarked that it was a discouragement to public officers when reflections were made upon their conduct, no reasons being assigned for such reflections. As the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had given an opinion as to the uselessness of Surveyors, hewas bound to state the grounds on which that opinion was based.
MR. E. J. REEDsaid, that he had been misunderstood. He did not say that our Surveyors were useless, but only that they did not perform their duties as efficiently as they ought. He might add that the Act of last year was not passed to give the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of congratulating himself, or the shipowners an opportunity of congratulating the President of the Board of Trade. It was passed with the view of instituting a more serious and searching inquiry into unseaworthy ships, and when the proper time arrived, he would lay before the House the reasons which induced him to think that the Surveyors did not perform their duties as efficiently as they might.
MR. NORWOODsaid, he had expressed no opinion whatever as to the operation of the Act of last year, he only spoke of the strong expressions about public servants.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he felt bound to say that he thought the remark of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) with regard to the shipowners was uncalled for. The hon. Member had spoken as if the House had legislated in a sense hostile to shipowners. The manner in which the shipowners dealt with the matter did not imply any disinclination to concur in measures for the saving of life. They might have differed from the hon. Member and others as to the particular measures to be employed, and

1063
might have occasionally expressed themselves with some warmth when reflections were cast upon them; but it was rather hard that the hon. Member should go out of his way to throw on the shipowners of the country imputations which they did not deserve.
MR. E. J. REEDthought the right hon. Gentleman had rather stretched his meaning on this subject. He (Mr. Reed) most certainly understood that the Act of last Session was passed in restraint of the shipowners. However, if the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the House desired that he should now make a statement he was willing to do so.
SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, if you trod on a worm it would turn, and the shipowners had been treated and spoken of in a way not pleasant even to those who had nothing to do with ships. If attacks and insinuations were persisted in, such as those of the hon. Member for Pembroke, it was natural they would be resented. For his part he thought the Surveyors had done their work very well indeed.
Vote agreed to.
(16.) £850, Civil Service Commission.
(17.) £872, Registry of Friendly Societies.
(18.) £10,000, Local Government Board.
(19.) £8, 700, Mint, including Coinage.
(20.) £11,400, Law Charges.
MR. GOLDSMIDwanted to know why the salaries of the Law Officers of the Crow n should be provided by Supplementary Estimates? It was rather extraordinary if Her Majesty's Government were not aware that they should have Law Officers to provide for.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that his hon. Friend would find that it was not so. The Vote was for fees of counsel and costs of intervention by the Queen's Proctor.
MR. GREGORYwanted to know under what circumstances the Queen's Proctor did intervene; whether there was any control over him, and whether he intervened of his own motion and at his own discretion, or had to refer to anyone before doing so?
MR. GORSTsaid, the Queen's Proctor did not in any case intervene on his own authority. In most cases the interven-
1064
tion was directed by the Judge, and in every case the evidence was laid before the Attorney General before the Queen's Proctor intervened.
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Treasury Solicitor had been asked to discharge these duties. In future there would be no costs paid to the Queen's Proctor out of Votes of Parliament. The large amount was due to the fact that there were large arrears.
DR. KENEALYasked what was paid for counsel's fees in the Stuart de Decies case. He protested against the expenses, and asked for information on the subject.
MR. ANDERSONinquired why it was necessary that there should be a Queen's Proctor appointed for England while no such officer existed for Scotland? In Scotland the Judges themselves interfered in cases of collusion, and he failed to see why this great and constantly increasing expense should be incurred in England. He also wanted to know if there was such a fee fund in the Divorce Court as repaid all its cost to the country, for he questioned the morality of the State providing men and women with facilities for getting divorces at any cost to the country. If they were to have such facilities, they should at least pay all the costs.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that when the Divorce Act passed it was thought desirable that the learned Judge who presided over the Divorce Court should have the assistance of an officer to be called the Queen's Proctor when he thought it necessary. As the provisions of that Act were not extended to Scotland, he presumed it was not thought necessary to appoint a Queen's Proctor for that part of the United Kingdom.
Vote agreed to.
(21.) £4,900, Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice.
Mr. W. H. SMITHexplained that the three Judges of the Court of Appeal who went Circuit were re-imbursed their Circuit expenses, and that the sum of £500 in the Estimate was to enable the Treasury to make the repayment. The other Judges paid their own Circuit expenses, except in the Winter Assizes.
Vote agreed to.

1065
(22.) £800, Admiralty Registry of the High Court of Justice.
(23.) £1,790, Wreck Commissioner's Office.
(24.) £26,252, County Courts.
(25.) £18,492, Police, Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
(26.) £1,850, Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
(27.) £1,800, Register House Departments, Edinburgh.
(28.) £2,000, Science and Art Department.
MR. B. SAMUELSONsaid, he understood that this sum was to defray the expense connected with the remarkable Loan Exhibition of scientific instruments at South Kensington. He wished to know whether this interesting and valuable collection was to be allowed to be dispersed, or whether any steps would be taken by the Government to keep it together as a permanent collection?
MR. E. J. REEDconcurred with his hon. Friend (Mr. Samuelson) as to the great advantages which had resulted from the Loan Collection of Scientific Apparatus at South Kensington, and as to the desirability of establishing such a Collection in a permanent form. He could, if time allowed, enumerate many very important national purposes which would be served by such a Permanent Science Exhibition or Museum, and it would undoubtedly aid materially in sustaining this country in that position of scientific eminence to which it had attained.
VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, on the part of the Government, he was glad to hear from the two hon. Gentlemen who had just sat down, and who were so well qualified to judge, that the Loan Exhibition of Scientific Instruments was so much approved by men of science. It was certainly a remarkable exhibition, and it was a remarkable thing that it should have attracted so much attention from men of the highest scientific distinction from all parts of the world, 300,000 having visited the collection during a few months. The hon. Gentlemen, however, opened a very wide question when they asked if the Government were prepared to continue this collection as a permanent Museum. They were no doubt aware that a memorial had been sent to the Government by several leading men of science asking that such a
1066
Museum should be established; and that the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 had made some offers to the Government on this point. Negotiations had been set on foot with regard to this important matter; but difficulties had arisen, one of which was that there was a considerable divergence of opinion amongst scientific men on the subject. The Government took a very great interest in the matter; but at present he was not empowered to say more than that before anything could be done it was necessary that there should be something like unanimity among men of science.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £550, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Expenses of the Arctic Expedition."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(29.) £800, Paris International Exhibition.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £46,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, in aid of Colonial Local Revenue, and. for the Salaries and Allowances of Governors, &c., and for other Expenses in certain Colonies."
MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, we were entering upon a dangerous course in assisting the local revenues of our Colonies, without knowing why the Colonies were not self-supporting. We were to present St. Helena with £5,500, because it was in financial difficulties, and to give Sierra Leone £38,000, and Gambia £3,000. If we were to make good the sums required for financial equilibrium in a colony, he feared that a large number of the colonies would be in need of that support.
MR. J. HOLMSdesired to have an explanation of the policy of the Government on this question, especially with reference to the charges for Sierra Leone and the Gambia on the West Coast of Africa.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that when last year a subject arose connected with the West Coast of Africa, he distinctly stated that in the event of it becoming

1067
necessary to maintain the existing system with regard to the Settlements there, Parliament must be prepared to vote a sum of money in aid of them. A proposal was under consideration last year which he ventured to think would have been beneficial to all parties concerned. It would have effected an exchange between certain French Settlements and the English Settlement of the Gambia. The negotiations came to an end, however, in consequence of the French Government raising demands which it was found impossible to comply with. If the system which had been for some years acted upon was to be brought to an end, of course such a Vote as that under discussion need not be submitted to the House, but if we were to maintain those Settlements, it would be necessary in some way to supplement their revenues, which hitherto had not been found equal to the demand made upon them.
MR. CHILDERSthought the increase in the Vote for the year was too large and the matter too serious to be brought forward in a Supplementary Estimate, and suggested that it would be better to withdraw the Vote and introduce it in the regular Estimates with an explanatory statement of the financial position of the Colonies in question.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it would be without some such addition as that which was proposed absolutely impossible to conduct the government of Sierra Leone. A portion of the money was required to pay a debt which had accrued through the depression of trade and the consequent diminution of Revenue, and there was also an expenditure for harbour work which largely increased the Estimate. The reason, he might add, why, the proposed outlay was not provided for in the regular Estimates of last year was, that the demand was not made on the Government in time to enable them to include them in those Estimates. In the case of St. Helena the money asked for was in a great measure to make up the deficiency of Revenue which was occasioned by the diversion of trade consequent on the opening of the Suez Canal.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the objection he had taken had not been met, and, if the Vote were passed without the production of further information, it would be setting an inconvenient precedent.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, they were informed of the adoption of a
1068
new policy, and all they knew of it was that it involved increased expenditure. The Vote ought to be postponed until they had fuller information. The diminution of the colonial revenue was duo to an increase in the export duty on palm oil, which injured the colony.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, if the Colonies in question were to be retained, it was necessary that these grants should be made. Last year there was under consideration a proposal, which did not seem to find favour with the House, to make certain exchanges with France of territory on the African coast. The financial importance of the proposal was that the Revenue of the colonies was derived from import duties, and if there were intervening ports, in other hands, goods would go through them, and the opportunities for smuggling be multiplied. It was felt that we could not retire from these Colonies, and what we had to deal with was the question of the present, regarding which he would give the Committee some figures as to their financial position. In Sierra Leone there had been for many years an excess of Expenditure over Revenue. In the years 1873, 1874, and 1875 there were deficits amounting in the aggregate to £23,000. In 1876 the deficit was still greater than it had been in previous years, in consequence of disturbances at the Sherbero, expenses for harbour works, and £31,000 for redemption debt, making, with £7,000 for the steamer stationed there, a total of £38,000. In Gambia there was, during the last three years, a total deficiency of £7,700. Votes were asked for to enable the colonies to go on, and there would be no objection to lay before the House the state of the several colonies and the several figures by which it was represented; and it would then, no doubt, be an important subject for consideration what was the state of relations between those colonies and the mother country, and whether those relations should be modified.
MR. GOSCHENhoped the question would not be allowed to remain open long. He wished to call to the attention of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether as a matter of precedent they ought to be called upon to aid the colonies by a large sum without having any Papers before them. It was impossible for them to grasp the financial situation of a

1069
colony in a moment and without Papers. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider again whether the Vote should not be postponed?
MR. WHITWELLalso hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to the postponement of the Vote, as hon. Gentlemen did not know whether it was a loan or whether it was a grant.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadmitted that the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was a reasonable one, and therefore he would agree to withdraw the Vote for the present.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
(30.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,240, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Expenses of the Mixed Commissions established under the Treaties with Foreign Powers for suppressing the Traffic in Slaves, and towards defraying the cost of the Agency and Consulate General at Zanzibar, including payment of the Imperial Moiety of the Muscat Subsidy."
DR. KENEALYmoved that Progress be reported. [" No, no ! "] Hon. Members had been discussing these Estimates for five or six hours, and he, for one, now felt quite worn out.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Kenealy.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE QUERexpressed the hope that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion, as there were only a few more of the Supplementary Votes to be taken.
MR. RYLANDStrusted that the important Votes would not be proceeded with at so late an hour — about 10 minutes past 12.
MR. PARNELLrecommended that hon. Members should go on till the end of the half-hour, when, as other Opposed Business could not be taken up, they could get home to bed.
MR. GOLDSMIDsupported the latter view of the case.
MR. WHALLEYthought that the subject raised by the Vote now before hon. Members was important, and demanded careful consideration on the part of the Committee. The Seyyid of Zanzi-
1070
bar was prepared to do all that could be expected from him with reference to a suppression of the Slave Trade, and would enable men of enterprize to make roads from the coast to the interior of Africa.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to make only one remark on that Vote—namely, that the payment they were now asked to make was not one to the Seyyid of Zanzibar, but a repayment to the Indian Government. That money had been advanced by the Indian Government; and, considering how much that matter affected our Imperial policy with regard to the Slave Trade, he was sure the Committee would naturally be anxious to set the account right with the Indian Treasury without delay; he therefore hoped the Committee would pass that Vote, and then he should have no objection to report Progress.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
MR. WHALLEYdesired to know whether the Government were prepared to support the enterprize in which Englishmen had been invited to embark by the Sultan of Zanzibar, of constructing a road into the interior of Africa?
MR. BOURKEassured the hon. Gentleman that the matter would not be overlooked by Her Majesty's Government.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Chairman de report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Hr. William Henry Smith.)
MR. PARNELLopposed the Motion, as he thought it better to proceed with the business in hand than enter at that hour upon the discussion of a series of Bills, 13 in number, every one of which required mature consideration. It was clear the object of the Government was to get to the other Business before the half-hour was reached. He should strongly oppose this method of procedure, because he feared if the Government resorted to these tactics they should have a recurrence of the lamentable scenes of last Session—scenes which did not tend to raise the House in the eyes of the country. The amount of work they had to get through was a heavy task, and sooner or later Parliament would break down, unless the business of the separate

1071
nationalities was handed over to home Legislatures.
MR. WHALLEYbelieved the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a Member of the Home Rule Party, and he therefore wished to know from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) if it was a part of the policy of that Party to kill the other Members of the House, by prolonging the discussions of the House at that late hour of the night. He appealed to the hon. and learned Member, as he had a character to lose in the House, or rather a character to maintain. He protested zealously and solemnly against the absurdity and ridicule to which they exposed themselves by the course they were pursuing. He had done as much as any man could do in attending to his duties, but he was no longer able to do it, and must retire immediately. They could not but impair the confidence of the public in the result of their labours. The hon. Gen-man openly stated that he did not sit to forward Imperial objects.
MR. PARNELLdenied that he had made use of the word Imperial.
MR. WHALLEYconsidered the hon. Gentleman was not in the House for any purpose whatever that was recognized by the forms and spirit of the Constitution.
THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that he was out of Order in attributing such motives to the hon. Member for Meath.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, nothing was further from his intention than to say anything offensive to the hon. Member, and was only endeavouring to do justice to that spirit of patriotism by which the hon. Gentleman was animated.
MR. BUTTsaid, as he had been appealed to, he wished to say that it was not any part of the Home Rule policy to kill hon. Members.
MR. BIGGARsaid, he had no wish to kill any hon. Member. He had been blamed as an obstructionist, but his sole object in opposing many of the measures on the Paper last week was only to prevent them being brought on at a time when discussions on important measures would not be reported.
Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

SETTLED ESTATES BILL— [BILL 61.]
(Mr. Marten, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Gregory.)
SETTLED ESTATES BILL— [BILL 61.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BIGGARobjected to any Bill of importance being taken at that hour of the night. He did not know what the value of the Bill might be; but he opposed the Bill being read a second time on the principle he had stated, and not because he wished in any way to obstruct business.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

PUBLICANS CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 87.]
(Dr. Cameron, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Mackintosh.)
PUBLICANS CERTIFICATES (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 87.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  DR. CAMERON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that as several hon. Gentlemen seemed to object to Bills being introduced without explanation at so late an hour, he might just say that it had been introduced simply with the object of correcting a mistake which had crept into the Act of last Session.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

BEER LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Meldon, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. Whitworth.)
BEER LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 57.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Short title. "Beer Licences Regulation (Ireland) Act, 1876.")
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he did not intend to offer any strong opposition to the Bill, and when the hon. Gentleman moved for its second reading, he offered no objection. He had only risen to say that he hoped hon. Gentlemen would take a leaf out of his book, and when they saw a useful Bill before the House refrain from opposing it.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had opposed the Bill on the ground of the lateness of the hour, he (Mr. Parnell) would have supported him; but since there was no disposition on his part to do so, he did not see any particular relevancy in the remarks he had made.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 2 (No licences, transfers, or renewals for sale of beer, &c. by retail for consumption elsewhere than on premises to be granted in respect of premises rated at less that £10, nor in cities, &c. with a population of exceeding 10,000, unless premises are rated at £20.)
  On the Motion of Mr. MELDON, Clause amended by inserting the word "January" instead of "July," and the word "general" instead of "special."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to, with Amendments.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next. [Bill 101.]

VALUATION OF PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. W. H. SMITH,in moving that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Valuation of Rateable Property in Ireland, said, that under the existing law a borough or portion of a county could not be re-valued by itself. The result of that system had been that there had been no re-valuation, no change in the adjustment of property in Ireland for the last 25 years, although there had been great changes, indeed, in the value of the property. The Grand Juries had power to apply for revisions of the counties; but, as it would increase the charges on their neighbours or friends, it was seldom that they did so. In the present measure it was proposed to frame a new Schedule of prices. That Schedule was to be based on exactly the same basis as the Schedule to the Act of 1852, and the most careful statement of those prices had been obtained from the principal market
  1074
  towns of Ireland. The terms of the Act of 1852 were based on the average of three years' prices—namely, the average of 1848–9–51, and it was proposed that the Schedule in the present measure should be based on the average of the prices for 1874–5–6. Under the old system, the whole expense fell on the counties; but it was now proposed that only half of the expense of the re-valuation should be borne by the county, and the other half by the Exchequer. There was also provision that from time to time new Schedules of prices should be obtained by the authority of the Lord Lieutenant. The hon. Gentleman concluded by making the Motion.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the Bill at that stage. It might settle many inequalities and anomalies in Ireland. He hoped the second reading would be postponed until the Bill was printed and the people of Ireland had had sufficient time to consider its provisions.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that the people in Ireland had borne their fair share of taxation for a very long time, and they would not complain if this Bill tended to lessen their burdens.
  MR. PARNELLdid not see what the object of the Bill was. It would probably raise the valuations and press heavily on the farmer, especially for arable land, the occupiers of which would have their valuation increased, both for their improvements and from the rise in prices.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the Valuation of Rateable Property in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 102.]

POLICE SUPERANNUATION FUNDS.
Select Committee appointed," to inquire into the Police Superannuation Funds in the Counties and Boroughs of England and Wales, and the Acts creating and regulating the same, and to report to the House whether any, and, if any, what alterations or amendments in the Law are required."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
And, on February 27, Committee nominated follows: — Mr. BIDDULPH, Mr. COTES, Mr. COWPER, Mr. GOURLEY, Mr. LEEMAN, Mr. GRANTHAM, Mr. TORR., Mr. FAIRFAX CARTWRIGHT, Colonel DYOTT, and Sir HENRY SELWINIBBETSON:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.

COMMONS.
Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, Six Members to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection, to consider every Report made by the Inclosure Commissioners certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the inclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the present Session, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order.
Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power, with respect to each such Provisional Order, to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament, and, if so, whether with or without modifications; and, in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Inclosure Commissioners.—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
And, on March 12, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Sir CHARLES W. DILIKE, Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, Mr. FAWCETT, Mr. PELL, and Mr. LEVESON GOWER: —Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock

TURKEY—THE TREATIES OF 1856-1871.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD CAMPBELLrose to call attention to the Correspondence upon Turkey; and to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will adopt such measures as appear to be the best calculated to prevent hostilities, to secure adherence to the Treaties of 30th March and 15th April 1856, so far as the Conference of 1871 has re-established them, and to promote the welfare of the races subject to the Ottoman Empire."
  Those who had followed the course of events during the last few months would have observed that the line of action taken by the European Powers did not go beyond the preservation of peace. Now, he contended that the Treaties of the 30th March and 15th April, 1856, as they were modified by the Conference of the Powers of 1871, were still binding. He had observed that during the last fortnight it had become the fashion to assert that the Tripartite Treaty of 1856 was inoperative, inasmuch as England was not obliged to interpose unless called upon by France and Austria to act. Now, it was tolerably certain that this contingency would never happen, and, therefore, it was a foregone conclusion that this Treaty was null and of no effect. But he (Lord Campbell) altogether disputed that position. Vattel had laid down a whole series of principles for deciding doubtful cases similar to that now pending; he denied that unless the other contracting parties to a Treaty called upon a third party to it to act the Treaty was void and of non-effect. He said that no single contracting party had a right to interpret a Treaty at its own pleasure; again that every interpretation that led to an absurdity was to be rejected; and again that such an interpretation as would render a Treaty null and without effect was inadmissible, and that it must be so interpreted as to give it its effect, so that it should not be vain and illusory. And Lord Palmerston had left in writing his opinion that Treaties could not be rendered null and void by such a process as that, and had

  983
  contended that no party to a Treaty was at liberty to make it null and void at its own pleasure, and the last principle laid down by Vattel which he should cite was, that if either of the contracting parties could and ought to have explained himself and had not done so it must be to his own damage. These principles lay at the root of the present question. Great Britain, as the most interested and the most determined Power in the Eastern Question, was entitled to address France and Austria calling upon them to join her in enforcing it. The Treaty, therefore, was in full force. If there should be no response to that appeal—or a negative response—a question would arise; but on that he would not hazard an opinion just now, as that question had not yet arisen. But if France and Austria were hopelessly incapable of interference, what followed suggested the idea that Great Britain had not exerted her proper influence in the councils of the world; but no one except in sarcasm or pleasantry would contend that feebleness of policy dissolved the strength of Treaty obligations. The remark of the noble Duke the other night, to the effect that Treaties were to be exposed to the destructive criticism of these days was one which neither Parliament nor the public would countenance. He believed that, remembering the way in which many years ago the noble Earl now at the head of the Government (the Earl of Beaconsfield) vindicated the guarantee to Schleswig, the country might rest assured that he would uphold the integrity of Treaties. It was argued by some persons that the Bulgarian atrocities had relieved this country of her engagements towards Turkey. The misapprehension on that point had perhaps subsided. Then it was said that the refusal of the Turks to adopt the recommendations of the Conference had completely put an end to those engagements. He accepted the Conference, though many persons of great sagacity condemned it. It had a tendency to put an end to the Holy Alliance by dividing or submerging that alliance; it had a tendency to accelerate the action of the Porte and to check arbitrary power, and it had prevented the occupation of any part of the Ottoman territory. It was a rainbow after a very long storm, and if it
  984
  did make it, extended the armistice. The Prime Minister had told the House that the refusal of the Porte was imprudent. On that point he would reserve his opinion altogether; in a few weeks we should be better able to tell. But granting, by way of hypothesis, that it was imprudent, if all the proper steps had not been taken to prevent that refusal, the responsibility would rest, not with the Porte, but with Great Britain, and our Treaty obligations were left untouched. If their Lordships referred to page 43 of the Blue Book, they would find a despatch from Lord Augustus Loftus, in which he stated that Prince Gortchakoff was of opinion that the Conference should be attended by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the respective Powers, as the sending of delegates who would have to refer to their Governments would tend to delay. That was so far back as the 15th of August. Had the counsel of Prince Gortchakoff been acted upon great results might have followed. In the first place England would have been represented at the Conference by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He need not say that he had great respect for the ability of the noble Marquess who acted as Special Plenipotentiary; but the noble Marquess was an utter stranger to the Turks, while the noble Earl was well known to them; he had their confidence during the Cretan insurrection; and, though some of his proceedings since their present troubles had displeased them as being characterized by too much caution, that confidence he still retained, and they knew that he disliked war. Then the arrangement suggested by Prince Gortchakoff would have prevented the presence of General Ignatieff at the Conference. Everybody who knew anything of these matters was aware that at Constantinople General Ignatieff was associated with various calamities to Turkey, and that so recently as May last he found it necessary to surround the Embassy with armed men and retire for a while from the Turkish capital. That General Ignatieff led the Conference to a great extent was clear from the Blue Books, and from his own valedictory speech to that assembly. The adoption of the suggestion of Prince Gortchakoff would have led to the introduction into the Conference of influences

  985
  likely to win concessions from the Porte, while it would have hindered the entrance into it of a man whose presence must have been a strong impediment to such concessions. In fact, it was inevitable that any Conference at which General Ignatieff took part was doomed to failure. He could not but think that for the failure of the Conference the Porte had no responsibility, and that, in consequence, the refusal of the Porte to the terms proposed by the Powers had not invalidated the Treaties. The agitation arising from the Bulgarian atrocities had led to intervention on the part of the country, which intervention was first manifested in the despatch of the 21st of September. In that despatch intervention was carried to a pitch unheard of in the annals of diplomacy. Therefore, now, if we had the right to intervene in the internal affairs of Turkey, we had the same right in respect of Portugal and Belgium. A right to interfere depended on an engagement to defend; and when the engagement to defend was given up, the right of interference would fall with it. When interference occurred the engagement to defend became more binding; and it might be said that the despatch of the 21st of September surrounded with a solid and impenetrable armour our engagement to defend. But for our Treaties we should have had no more right to interfere between Turkey and her subjects than we had to interfere with the Government of France and the Communists, or the North Americans and the Red Indians, or the Russians and Siberia. It was said—or assumed rather—that Treaties fell with the policy with which they originated, and that since the policy which we upheld by force of arms in 1854 had changed, the Treaties which were the results of that policy had come to an end. On the contrary, he maintained that every object for which in 1854 we resolved to defend the Bosphorus continued at this moment, and that in the lapse of time those objects had been further developed. Twenty years ago if Russia had become a great Mediterranean Power, there would have been still the united Navies of France and Great Britain to counteract her. It was known that at the time to which he was referring those two Navies formed one consolidated element. We were at present near a precipice of war or dishonour.
  986
  A few years ago we changed the depository of power in this country, and we had now a body of electors on whom taxation did not fall so generally and so heavily as it did on the electoral body created by the Act of 1832. What the sentiments of the present constituency would be in case of a war might be presumed from the feeling of the electoral body of 1832, who after the fighting in the Crimea were not willing to conclude peace with Russia as soon as the Government were. Among the masses of the people of this country there was anti-Russian feeling; but he admitted the exercise of naval and military power by this country was not desirable, and that our only course of action was to endeavour to prevent hostilities in Europe and Asia. There was an impression abroad, and especially in Russia, that the whole body of the Liberal Party in this country had become Russian partizans. The circumstances that had given rise to that feeling were so manifest that he would not trouble their Lordships by pointing them out. Of course, it was well known that the Liberals were not in power, and that there was no chance of their arriving at it; but their social and political importance gave much weight to the opinion which they were supposed to entertain on the Eastern Question. But if such an opinion was entertained, it was clear that Russia with such an element at her back might be much more disposed to engage in an aggressive policy than she otherwise might be. No doubt the impression as to the sentiment of the Liberal Party was unfounded. The history of that Party showed it to be so. In 1791 Mr. Fox opposed the Russian Armament. At the time of the second Partition of Poland in 1815, and at the time when the Holy Alliance was formed, the Liberal Party manifested strong anti-Russian tendencies. These were displayed again at the time of the Polish War in 1830, and at the time of the Russian intervention against Hungary in 1848. At last that Party determined to wage war against Russia in 1854, though Mr. Cobden, in the House of Commons, and a noble Lord now sitting on the cross benches (Earl Grey), used all their efforts to prevent that war from being undertaken. After the Crimean War, the Liberal Party being in power, Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell, in 1863, united in a diplomatic combination against Russia in the in-

  987
  terests of Poland. Up to the time when the Bulgarian atrocities became known there had been no suspicion that the Liberal Party was on the side of Russia; but after the vague and exaggerated language which had been used since then it was no wonder that the politicians of St. Petersburg should have arrived at the conclusion—though it was one altogether unfounded—that the Party which had by development become more and more of a barrier to their aggression was suddenly gone over to the opposite extreme. The Russian politicians, no doubt, thought that Providence had intervened in their favour, and that an aggressive policy might be resumed with impunity when so great and historical a barrier to their aggressions had been removed. He ventured to think that a Motion such as that of which he had given Notice, coming from the Opposition side of the House, would tend to dissipate that illusion. He regretted that it was not in the hands of some one of more importance than himself—he should have liked to see it in the hands of such a personage as Lord Napier and Ettrick; but its adoption by the Party would give it all the weight desirable for such a Motion. He wished to refrain from criticism of the Government, for in politics, as well as art, he had always been of opinion that criticism soared and execution grovelled. But, as on a former occasion he refrained from criticism, and he consequently found himself between taunts on the one side and smouldering satisfaction on the other, he wished to refer to some parts of these proceedings as furnishing a new basis for argument for his Motion. He thought many fantastic approvals and unwarrantable charges had been brought against the Ministers. The first error which it occurred to him might be charged against them was that so far back as 1874 no efforts seemed to have been made to avert the union of the three Northern Powers which began in that autumn. Another deficiency, more than an error, in his opinion, was that during the February, March, and April of last year no exertions seemed to have been made in order to win over to our views the authorities at Berlin. A third objection he had to make came from the Blue Books. He found that in the despatches the noble Earl had used expressions which he could not but deem imprudent. The noble Earl—no doubt
  988
  with the best intentions—had indulged in statements that in no case was he prepared to act upon the Treaties. He could not help thinking that such language had a tendency to lure Russia into a warlike attitude. The effect of this language had been in some degree counteracted by the speech of the Prime Minister on the 9th November. The prestige of the British Government required to be increased among diplomatists if war was to be averted. He would recommend his Motion as having a tendency to give them more distinctly that prestige of which they stood in need. If war between Russia and the Porte broke out, they would have to choose between a dangerous course and a humiliating attitude, and therefore the true line of policy for this country was to prevent hostilities in Europe or in Asia, and no amount of influence from the bench below, or of the Russian party in this country ought to bar their acquiesence in the Motion. He could not deny from some of the contradictory opinions which had been expressed, that contradictory opinions existed among Members of the Government; there was a certain variation of language and expression. He might therefore be permitted to express opinions he would otherwise reserve as to the position of the country and the steps which most required to be taken on this subject. The first stage he would venture to suggest was that the excited hordes who had invaded the precincts of the Eastern Question in the interest of Russia should be driven out. They told the country that they were its concentrated intellect—he would retort upon them that they were the condensed servility and embodied madness of the country. The next step was, that the line, whatever it might be, that governed the foreign policy at the time of the Berlin Memorandum should re-establish its ascendancy in the Cabinet. His view was that it was the duty of the Government to proclaim their adherence to the Treaties so far and so long as Parliament enabled them to do it. The only basis upon which they were entitled to ask for a single shred of Ottoman reform was founded on the advantages we had secured for Turkey by the blood and treasure we had poured out like water in the Crimean War. It was with perfect confidence that he submitted his Motion to the House, and with the firm conviction that it would secure the precedence

  989
  of which they stood in need, the mind and disposition without which that precedence would be useless. The noble Lord concluded by moving for an Address.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will adopt such measures as appear to be the best calculated to prevent hostilities, to secure adherence to the Treaties of 30th March and 15th April 1856, so far as the Conference of 1871 has re-established them, and to promote the welfare of the races subject to the Ottoman Empire.—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  EARL GREY: My Lords, this Motion is not one which it is possible for the House to accept. It is open to this objection—that it implies that unless we express our opinion on the matter by way of an Address to Her Majesty, Her Majesty's Advisers will not take those measures with reference to the present state of affairs in the East which this House believes ought to be adopted. If the House really does entertain that opinion, and if it has so much distrust of those to whose hands the conduct of those affairs is committed, it is bound to express that opinion clearly and distinctly. If, on the contrary, it does not entertain that opinion, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that it would be imprudent and inopportune, as being calculated to weaken the hands of the Government, for us to agree to a Motion that would bear an interpretation of that kind. For that reason, my Lords, I, for one, cannot concur in the Motion of the noble Lord. I do not intend on this occasion to follow the noble Lord in the observations he has addressed to the House—although upon some points I am much inclined to agree with him. My object in rising is to address to the House some remarks upon the general questions which the noble Lord has brought under our notice; and I wish to do so the more because, when the subject was under discussion last week, I abstained from taking any part in the debate, being painfully conscious that my powers of addressing your Lordships are not what they were. I did not think, under the circumstances, that I ought to endeavour to take part in so important a discussion. I hope, however, that I may now be permitted to avail myself of this opportunity of making a few remarks upon this subject, although I am aware that they will be both desultory and imperfect. In the first place, I cannot help saying that in the course of that debate there appeared to me to be a
  990
  want of appreciation of the great importance of averting the fall of the Ottoman Empire. I do not dispute the statement of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) that there has been great misgovernment in the Turkish Provinces; on the contrary, I fully concur with him on that point, although I think that there has been some exaggeration with regard to it. But bad as the present state of things there may be now, I believe that it is somewhat better than it was when we entered into the Crimean War to maintain, as we were told, the independence and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. The noble Lord who has just sat down has expressed himself satisfied with our conduct in entering into that war. I may, however, state that I entertain the very opposite opinion on that subject—that I think now as I thought then—that the war was unnecessary and therefore unjustifiable. I am of opinion that all the blood that was shed and all the treasure that was expended in the course of that memorable contest has had the effect of leaving matters in the East in a worse position than they otherwise would have been. But, although I think that the misgovernment of the Turkish Provinces may, perhaps, have been in some degree exaggerated, still I fully agree with the noble Duke that it formed quite sufficient ground to make us hail with satisfaction any change that was likely to bring about a better state of things. But, before I can consent that any particular course shall be taken towards hastening reform of the Turkish Rule, I should wish to be convinced that it is calculated to bring about the better state of things we desire to see established. Now, on examining this question carefully, it appears to me that the Turkish Empire could not be overthrown at the present time without producing more evil than we seek to remove; because from all the information that has been laid before the House and from the accounts of travellers it certainly does appear that the Provinces of European Turkey are not in a state at present in which they could govern themselves—they are divided by bitter animosities of race and religion, they are generally in a state of the grossest ignorance and darkness, there are few persons to be found possessed of wealth and education, and there is scarcely any middle class: their clergy are ignorant and cor-

  991
  rupt—and, in short, there exists in those Provinces at the present moment no single element of good government. I am, on the whole, of opinion that, if the Turkish rule were withdrawn, anarchy and civil war would follow, and that civil war would be followed by European war, which would in turn result in the Provinces falling into the hands of Russia. I, for one, am not of opinion that, even if the change could be peaceably effected, it would be of advantage that the power over the Provinces to which I refer should be transferred from the hands of Turks to the hands of Russians. If your Lordships compare the Turkish Government and the Russian Government in the countries subject to their respective sway I do not think you will admit—certainly, I for one am not prepared to admit—that the advantage is so clearly in favour of Russia as many persons seem inclined to imagine. Can any man, for example, conceive of tyranny more oppressive and outrageous than that which was exercised by Russia over Poland? Taking our own times, can anyone say that Russian government is in favour either of improvement, materially or of civilization, looking at the question from a social or political point of view? The concurrence of testimony is complete as to the universal corruption which pervades every branch of the Government—including the administration of justice. This corruption is as deep and general as that which prevails in Turkey. The more regular and better organized system of Russia does, no doubt, prevent those open acts of lawless violence which are too often perpetrated in Turkey; but, on the other hand, this very organization, and the principles on which it is worked, makes the Government press on its subjects with a crushing and deadening weight very adverse to real progress and enlightenment. Again, though the government of the Turk is bad in many respects, yet when by accident it falls into good hands—into the hands of a wise and honest Pasha—the general system of that government is not unfavourable to progress and enlightenment. It does not interfere with freedom of opinion—and especially with freedom of religious opinion; and that is very different from the state of matters which exists in Russia, where every endeavour is made to suppress all diversity in religious feelings. Once more—another great civilizer is commerce;
  992
  and your Lordships must be well aware how much more favourable are the principles of Turkey to commerce and industry than the system of Russia. Upon the whole, while I admit—as I have already indicated—that you have not in Russia those violent outbursts of abominable tyranny which occur from time to time in the Turkish dominions; yet, on the other hand, there exists in Russia a system of government which in the long run is not favourable to human advancement, and which does not hold out the same hopes for the future that the Turkish Government might do if efficient steps were taken to correct some of its worse abuses. These are the reasons which make me believe that, quite irrespective of any English interests, it is not desirable to break down the dominion and government of Turkey. And if it be not expedient at once to overturn that power, it seems to follow, as a matter of course, that it will not be wise to interfere more than we can possibly help between the Turkish Government and its subjects. As a general rule—I do not say as an absolute rule, because exceptional cases must arise—it is wrong for one nation to interfere with the domestic concerns of another, either with respect to the form of its government or the manner in which that government is administered. The principle of intervention, if once admitted, is capable of very wide and dangerous application. I am not sure that cases might not arise when it might be applied to ourselves in a manner of which we should very much complain. Your Lordships must know as a fact that the system of intervention has worked great evils in the world. It was that principle which led to the Partition of Poland; it was that principle which led to the disastrous consequences of the Coalition against France in the management of her internal concerns; it was that principle which was the main cause of the 20 years of war and bloodshed which had afflicted Europe; and it was that principle which was the cause of the evils which resulted from the interference of the Holy Alliance in Italy and Spain. These are considerations which have weighed with the wisest and best of British statesmen, and their influence is seen in the fact that those statesmen have for the most part, resisted all proposals for the interference of this country in the domestic con-

  993
  cerns of another nation. We invariably refused to interfere in the case of Poland, suffering from the oppression of Russia; we refused to interfere when Lombardy was oppressed by Austria; at a later date we refused to interfere in connection with the excessive tyranny of the Government of Naples and Sicily; and I believe that in all these cases the decision was a wise one. But in the present instance the Government have felt it necessary to interfere between the Porte and its revolted subjects, and I think that in doing so they have been guided by a spirit of wisdom. When it became necessary that measures should be adopted for the purpose of restoring peace in the Provinces of Turkey the Government did right in joining with the other Powers in making representations upon the subject to the Porte. But it appears to me there is one point on which explanation is required. It is this—Why was it, when Her Majesty's Government consented to lay before the Porte the proposals contained in the Andrassy Note, that nothing was also done to show the Turks that, in the event of their listening to the proposals contained in the Note, the Powers in return would agree to prevent the neighbours of the revolted Provinces from giving secret aid, and would also call upon Servia and Montenegro, then in arms against the Turkish Government, to abstain from seizing any territory by force, or taking any further steps, until time had been allowed for the opinions of the Powers and the results to which such opinions could lead had been fully made known? If that had been done there was a fair prospect that peace would have been maintained. But the intervention of Her Majesty's Government was unfortunately one-sided. They addressed the Turks only; for I cannot find any record of anything like an authoritative appeal to the Insurgents of Servia or Herzegovina to come to terms with the Porte. Well, my Lords, I come to another point on which I think that explanation is required. When the war had broken out between Servia and the Porte, in which Servia got very much the worst of it, why, I ask, was the question as to the terms of peace mixed up with another and a totally independent question—namely, as to the measures to be taken with regard to the Insurgent Provinces as a whole? I do not see
  994
  what Servia had to do with that question. As an exceptional case—although contrary to the general rule—it might have been fit for Europe to endeavour to intervene between the Porte and its subjects; but what claim had Servia—a vassal Province—to be consulted in any way as to what was to be done with the revolted Provinces? Consul Holmes says, in one of his despatches, that there was no connection or sympathy between Bosnia and Servia. It was impossible, he says, for two countries to have less interest in common. What claim, then, had Servia to give any opinion, or to intervene at all with regard to the terms to be granted to the revolted Provinces? If that course had not been taken, peace between Servia and the Porte might, I think, long since have been established. The Porte, impressed by the European Powers, might have conceded the status quo as asked for by the noble Earl. And if peace had been brought about, how much of the difficulties which subsequently arose might have been saved ! The renewal of the war, which had been suspended for a short time, with all the bloodshed it occasioned—all those long and complicated negotiations with regard to the armistice, which I must say were not greatly to the credit of any party connected with them—all these might have been avoided; and this once accomplished the Powers and Turkey might then have resumed the consideration of the question as to what was to be done with respect to the revolted Provinces. Well, on the 11th of September, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary addressed a despatch to Sir Henry Elliot, in which he informed him that he had had an interview with the Russian Ambassador, and had told Count Schouvaloff the terms on which peace might be established. These terms were, as well as I remember, the status quo, speaking roughly, as regards Servia and Montenegro, and administrative government in the nature of local autonomy in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and with regard to Bulgaria some measure of the same description, of which the particulars might be discussed. Now, I want to know why it was that those two questions were added to the simple question of the peace with Servia? The despatches of Consul Holmes point out in the clearest manner that Bosnia and Herzegovina were utterly incapable of

  995
  working any system of elective self-government, and that any attempt to introduce such a system would be a failure and do more harm than good. He said—and it was perfectly true—that what was wanted in those Provinces was a strong and enlightened despotism—that that, in the then state of things was the only practicable form of government. I do deeply regret that this unfortunate idea of establishing local autonomy was proposed. We know from the despatches that it was a condition that specially alarmed the Porte; and having seen what had happened in Wallachia and Moldavia, and with Servia itself, they might well have feared such a condition. I am a great admirer of local self-government; but experience proves that with respect to communities altogether unused to it, the central authority may be unduly weakened without giving any real security for good government to the Provinces to which the privilege is extended. It is a problem not impossible to solve—how in such a case local self-government can be established without those results being produced; but certainly it is one of great difficulty, and I must say I think it was an unfortunate time to suggest it when those Provinces were in actual insurrection, or when insurrection was barely suppressed. I remember to have heard the story—whether true or not I cannot say—of President Lincoln, who—when a proposition was made to him in the course of the Civil War in the United States—said "It is a bad time to swop horses when you are crossing a ford," and that is applicable to the present case. It was, indeed, a bad time to attempt to introduce new institutions into Provinces which were suffering from all the agitation of insurrection, actual or suppressed. The course adopted was certainly one not at all likely to be successful. My Lords, I will now venture to say a few words on the present state of things. I hope, from some words that dropped from the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary the other night that the question of peace between Servia and Turkey is in a fair way of being settled; and I do trust that the Turkish Government will endeavour to arrive at some satisfactory arrangement with regard to this Province. It was said the other night, both by the noble Earl at the head of the Government and
  996
  by the noble Marquess our Plenipotentiary at Constantinople, that Turkey had been guilty of extreme folly in rejecting two proposals, the refusal of which had caused the failure of the Conference.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not recollect that his noble Friend (the Earl of Beaconsfield) had made such a remark, and it certainly had not fallen from him. What he had said of the unwisdom of the Turkish Government was directed to their rejection of the terms of the Conference generally, and not to the rejection of these two particular proposals.
  EARL GREY: I am certainly under the impression that the Porte had, by rejecting those two proposals, caused the failure of the Conference. There seems little chance of Turkey changing its opinion, but I hope that the Government will consider with the other Powers whether other measures may not be suggested which may equally attain the object they have in view. Is it true that the objections of Turkey to these two peoposals are so unwise as they are said to be? I do not so regard the matter. I will ask your Lordships to consider what would have been the effect of the creation of this mixed Commission? This body would have been composed of the Representatives of the Six European Powers, and it would have interposed between the Turkish Government and its officers on the one hand, and the Turkish population on the other in matters of administration. This body would have been armed with the most extensive powers. It would have been enabled to overrule the Turkish Government on all the most essential points of administration. There was hardly an act of the Government—there was hardly a measure that the Government could have taken — that would not have been liable to be stopped and thwarted by the Commission. Was it not natural that the Turkish Government should have scruples as to the necessity of appointing a Commission armed with such powers? Would the authority thus created have been calculated to promote good government and a vigorous administration of the Turkish Provinces. These Provinces will require, form any years to come, a firm, vigorous, and consistent administration of the powers of the Government. Was that likely to have been obtained by a Board

  997
  or Commission representing the Six European Powers? I have always heard it said in this country that a Board is a defective machinery of government; and unless the head is supreme I am much inclined to agree in that opinion. But here we were going to have a Board composed of persons who would have been not only independent of each other, and of equal power and authority, but representing equal and jealous Powers. The result could only be that each Member of the Commission would have considered himself the Representative of the nation by which he was nominated, those nations having jarring interests and conflicting opinions with regard to Turkey. I will only ask your Lordships to consider what chance there would have been of these Provinces recovering their prosperity if they were placed under such a Government? I am old enough to remember how the Government of Greece was carried on 40 years ago, when the European Powers interfered in its behalf. It was never proposed that Greece should be governed by a mixed Commission; but the Powers of Europe—especially France, England, and Russia—endeavoured through their Ministers to direct and guide the internal and domestic administration of Greece. I believe that those three nations had a sincere and honest desire to promote the prosperity of Greece, and that all the measures they recommended were designed with that view. But, unfortunately, the views of the three countries as to what would be good for the Greeks were very different, and the consequence was that the Representatives of these Powers endeavoured to promote their views by obtaining the support of the local authorities. Three Parties were thus formed in Greece — the French, English, and Russian Party — each striving to direct the general course of the Government. As naturally happened, a state of things arose when Party spirit ran high under which every appointment to the various offices, every removal of an officer, and everything suggested to the Government of Greece was discussed, and either opposed or supported, not with reference to the interests of Greece, but with reference to its bearing on the supposed views and wishes of these Powers. Greece was literally torn to pieces by the intrigues of different Parties at that time. As a
  998
  Member of Lord Melbourne's Administration, I had the opportunity of closely watching the working of a system which I greatly deplored, and I believe it was very much owing to the seeds of Party spirit and of intrigue then sown that Greece did not make the progress she would otherwise have done when the yoke of Turkey was removed. My Lords, I trust that of this proposal of a Commission of national control Turkey may hear no more. My Lords, the other point which was rejected by the Porte related to the appointment of the Governors to the Provinces. With regard to the corrupt choice of the Governors and the practice of continually changing them, I think the Conference hit the real blot of Turkish administration. It is impossible to doubt that there is no one cause to which the mis-government of the Turkish Provinces is more directly owing than the corrupt choice and frequent changes of Governors. This is one of the main causes of the oppression of those who live under the rule of the Porte. A Governor who has obtained his post by corruption naturally endeavours to regain from the people under his rule the money by which he obtained his post. He knows that he may be at any moment displaced by some higher bidder, and it is quite natural that a Pasha should endeavour to screw from the people under him the largest possible amount of money in the smallest possible time. Something must be clone to correct this evil, and if what was suggested at the Conference had been accepted by the Porte, I believe it would have accomplished much good. At the same time we must not conceal from ourselves that there is no small weight in the objections to such a proposal. It is undoubtedly true that a system under which a Government could not dismiss its officers when they were disobedient, or manifested incapacity or dishonesty, would not in ordinary circumstances be found favourable to good and vigorous administration. I cannot help regretting that proposals were not submitted for improving the government of the Provinces by means less likely to provoke the opposition of Turkey. It might have been suggested to the Porte to appoint Governors who would command the confidence of the Powers, and that they should not be removed, except for misconduct, without the Powers

  999
  being informed of the step about to be taken. This would have involved no actual interference with the authority of the Porte. No doubt it would have been found difficult for the Porte to have found suitable men among its own subjects, but it would have been possible for the Porte to have applied to the other Powers, who would have found no difficulty in supplying men competent to govern the Provinces. I have heard it asserted that Her Majesty's Government were wrong in not showing more complete confidence in Russia, and in not acting more in concert with her; but I cannot see any ground whatever for the charge; and, perhaps, if there be ground of complaint it would be in the opposite direction. I concur most heartily with those who say we ought to join with Russia in urging upon the Porte measures for improving the government of Turkey; that we ought not to show jealousy and suspicion of Russia; and that, when she proposes measures of which we approve, we ought to give her full credit for them, and heartily join in promoting them— all that I entirely admit, and that it would not be wise or expedient to manifest jealousy or suspicion; but, at the same time, I must demur to the notion that we are to place blind confidence in any other Power. I cannot help looking back to past events. Your Lordships cannot forget there have been cases in which the British Government has received very express promises from Russia which have not afterwards been fulfilled. I do not doubt that when the Emperor of Russia expressed to our Ambassador such friendly sentiments towards us, and his desire to co-operate with us in producing a better state of things, he was speaking sincerely; but unless even Emperors are men of very unusual strength of will they may have to encounter currents of opinion and passion among their Ministers and persons employed in their armies and civil services which may prove too strong to be controlled; and in the case of an absolute, even more than in that of a Constitutional Government, it is unwise to place too much reliance on what is said by Sovereign or Minister. We must look to their acts. It is by her acts, and not by her professions, that Russia must be judged; and, during the last two years, I cannot say that my opinion
  1000
  of her conduct has been altogether favourable. If she had seriously desired to maintain peace and to obtain greater protection for the Christian subjects of the Porte, I cannot but believe she might have found means—not, perhaps, of preventing the insurrection, but, at all events, of preventing the aid and countenance which it received from the neighbouring Provinces, by which that insurrection was supported—I cannot but believe she might have prevented her own subjects from joining the Servian armies. I cannot help contrasting the conduct of Russia in these matters with the protest made by her in an extraordinary State paper three years ago in reference to a few foreign soldiers and officers passing through Turkey into Circassia. Your Lordships must have been astonished, as I was, on reading the despatch addressed to the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary on the 5th of September last by Sir Henry Elliot, in which he informed the noble Earl that, in the absence of the Russian Ambassador, he had had a conversation with the Russian Chargé d'Affaires, who protested, in warm terms, against Turkey concluding peace with Servia without the approval of the Powers, for he said it was possible the two might be satisfied with terms which the other Governments—or, at all events, his own, would not approve. It appears to me that the Chargé d'Affaires made an important revelation of the secret views and intentions of his Government which probably the Ambassador would not have been frank or indiscreet enough to have made. That revelation so made seems to me utterly inconsistent with the belief that Russia was animated by a disinterested desire for peace. I have trespassed on your Lordships longer than I intended, and I can only thank your Lordships for your attention.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, having already within the last few days twice addressed your Lordships upon this Eastern Question, I need not assure you that I would not voluntarily come forward to do so on the present occasion; but so much has been said by my noble Friend who has just sat down (Earl Grey), and by the noble Lord who introduced the discussion, inviting explanations, and in some cases calling for a defence of the past actions of the Government, that I should not be justified in refusing

  1001
  to accept the invitation so held out—I will not call it a challenge, for I am bound to say the comments have been made in a fair and friendly spirit. The discussion has naturally taken a very wide range, and I am afraid, therefore, I shall be somewhat desultory in my reply. In referring to the various points that have been raised I will begin by referring to the speech of the noble Earl. I am sure your Lordships will all agree with me that it would have been a matter of very great regret if the discussion had closed without our having the benefit of his long experience and of his dispassionate criticism. There was much in the speech of the noble Earl with which I agree; there was much also which I regard as matter for careful reflection and consideration; but your Lordships will understand that I naturally pass over those points in which there is an agreement between us, and advert only to those in regard to which my noble Friend criticized the action of the Government. The first of my noble Friend's criticisms is this—He asks, why did we not in the beginning of 1875 require as a condition of signing the Andrassy Note, and acceding to the policy indicated in that Note—why did we not require on the part of the States bordering on Turkey a real and effectual, and not a nominal, neutrality? My answer is, that we did so as far as it lay in our power; and I refer my noble Friend to the noble Duke who spoke the other night (the Duke of Argyll), who seemed to think we had gone a great deal too far in pressing the Austrian Government to observe on its frontiers the obligations of international law. It was along the Austrian frontier that the greatest part of the assistance was given to the insurgents in Herzegovina and Bosnia; and certainly whatever you may think of our policy, whether you think it right or wrong, it cannot be said that there was any slackness on our part in calling the attention of the Austrian Government to these breaches of international law which were being committed—I do not say, nor do I believe, with the sanction of the highest authorities—but which nevertheless were committed by the local population, and probably with the connivance of the local officials. That is my answer to the criticism of the noble Earl. If we had chosen to ask we might have
  1002
  obtained a declaration of the intention to observe entire neutrality; but my noble Friend is far too experienced a statesman to attach much value to declarations of that kind. With regard to the second point, on which my noble Friend considers that we have been in the wrong, he asks why, when Servia was getting the worst of the struggle, and had appealed to us for our mediation, we mixed up two separate questions —the question of the terms on which peace should be granted to Servia, and the question of the internal reforms which we wished brought about in the Insurgent Provinces. My Lords, we had to bear in mind that it was quite useless to offer terms of peace to Servia which we were aware Servia would not accept. We knew also that whether or not the Servian Government would have been willing of itself to make peace, without any stipulations on behalf of the Insurgent populations, there were those in Servia and out of it, influencing the Government at Belgrade, who would not allow such a peace to be made. I am bound to say that, considering how intimately their cause and that of the Insurgents within the Turkish Provinces were connected—considering how closely one was mixed up with the other—I do not think it very unnatural that the Servian Government should have shrunk from what might appear unfair conduct in making separate terms of peace for themselves, and throwing over those with whom they had been acting. If my noble Friend thinks that undue deference was shown to the Servians in that matter, I can only say that the Servian Government applied for admission to the Conference, and their application was refused. My noble Friend went on to refer to the question of local autonomy — "local or administrative autonomy" is the phrase employed in the despatches—and he expressed surprise that we should have consented to any propositions of that kind when we had before us despatches showing the difficulty of carrying them into effect. The phrase of "local or administrative autonomy" was not one of my devising. I did not particularly admire it; it seemed very vague. I rather protested against its use. I accepted it as it stood. I took it as I found it, and if your Lordships will read the Blue Books you will see that this ambiguous term

  1003
  was carefully limited and defined by certain supplementary words explaining what in our sense it meant. They were in effect that what we meant by local autonomy was a certain measure of self-government, such as would give the population some control over their own local affairs, and some security against arbitrary acts. That was a very different thing from the autonomy proposed at the beginning of these discussions, and which really meant that the Provinces in question were to be placed under an administration entirely different from that which prevailed anywhere else in Turkey. If my noble Friend's suggestion is that no kind of local self-government should be extended to the Christian population of Turkey, I am bound to say that I am ready to meet him on that point. I do not believe that with an Empire such as Turkey—an Empire so vast and so heterogeneous, including so many populations, and in some parts so little connected with the central power—I do not believe the administration can be held together except by the introduction of the principle of self-government to a considerable extent. My noble Friend then says—" Whether the thing in the abstract was right or wrong, you are wrong in doing it at the time you did." With all respect to my noble Friend's authority, I do not think that observation applies; because when people are in insurrection, when we are doing all we can to induce them to lay down their arms, it seems natural, almost indispensable, to accompany the advice with a promise, at least, of some of those reforms for which they are contending. Austria had to deal with a very formidable insurrection in Hungary, and as the result of the pacification immediately afterwards the whole system of administration in that country was changed. We ourselves had, although on a much smaller scale, an insurrection 40 years ago in Canada; and I do not think it was very long after the suppression of that insurrection, that a new order of things was introduced into Canada, the object of which was to remove the grievances complained of. My noble Friend went on to allude to the question of the International Commission that was proposed at the Conference, and he expressed great doubts of the expediency and practicability of that scheme. My noble Friend is doubt-
  1004
  less aware—though he did not refer to it this evening—that the plan of an International Commission was largely modified in the course of the discussions of the Conference. As first proposed, no doubt it was intended that the powers should be very large; but as the scheme finally stood, the International Commission was not one for administrative purposes, but it was a Commission for the purposes of supervision only, and in exercising its functions would possess no other powers than those which are already vested in members of the Consular body. The Commission was at first called by the French word, a Commission de Contrôle, and contrôle, as the noble Earl knows, does not signify at all the same thing as the corresponding word in English, it means supervision only; and it was introduced as a less offensive term than the almost equivalent word "surveillance." It was not proposed to be a Commission of Control in the English sense, but a Commission of Supervision. My noble Friend says there was not much probability of such a body acting in a satisfactory manner, because its members were likely to pull different ways. I am afraid that is true; but it is equally true with regard to the Ambassadors and Consuls whom you now employ. It is one inevitable inconvenience of an interference, however necessary, in the affairs of a foreign country. My noble Friend answered his own argument when he spoke of the inconvenience which arose from the different action of the various Powers in the case of Greece. They could not have shown more discretion if such a Commission as that lately proposed had existed. I quite agree with one thing which my noble Friend said as to the two great requirements of the Turkish Empire and the difficulty of meeting them—one being the difficulty of finding competent men to govern, and the other being the difficulty of providing them with security against arbitrary removal. That is a matter which the Conference did not fail to bear in mind; it was considered, and I do not think it is likely to be lost sight of hereafter. My noble Friend said he hoped we should hear nothing more of the proposal for an International Commission. I can only repeat what I said on a former occasion—that the particular scheme proposed at the Confer-

  1005
  ence was not an object in itself, but a means to an end. Provided we get those reforms which we consider desirable and essential, I do not apprehend we shall concern ourselves as to whether they are obtained through one kind of machinery or another. I now pass to the speech of my noble Friend who opened the discussion (Lord Campbell). He began by reference to what fell from me on a former occasion with respect to the interpretation of the Treaty of April, 1856. If I understood him aright, what he said was this—He said I contended that the Treaty of April, 1856, could have no validity unless France or Austria chose to call upon us to act upon it; and he said that everybody knew that under existing cirumstances France and Austria were not likely to invoke an action; and he then proceeded to contend that it was unreasonable to assign to a Treaty, a meaning which would render it of absolutely no effect. My answer is, that although the changed circumstances of the present time have made the Treaty of far less importance than it originally was, it does not at all follow that because you may choose to consider it for practical purposes as null and void now, therefore it was so at the time when it was entered into. I do not think he is justified in saying that, because a change of circumstances has made the Treaty as it stands at present of little value or efficacy, assuming the ordinary construction to be put upon it, therefore you are to disregard the plain meaning of the document and put on its words a construction more binding than in ordinary language they would bear. My noble Friend says that, supposing the Powers which have a right to call upon us to act, do not do so, that does not cancel your obligation. But as our obligations are only to them, if they do not choose to call upon us to fulfil what we have undertaken to do under certain circumstances, I do not see that it is for us to enter into the question of what may be their motives or the determining causes which have prevented those Powers from so calling on us. That is their affair, not ours. My noble Friend then went on to a much smaller matter, but as he mentioned it I ought perhaps to say a word on the subject. He referred to a suggestion thrown out by Prince Gortchakoff in August last for a Conference to be held, with
  1006
  the condition that in order to avoid the necessity of referring home for instructions it should be attended by all the Foreign Ministers in person; and my noble Friend seemed to think if we had accepted that suggestion the result of the Conference might have been very different. To that I have several answers. In the first place, I am perfectly certain—I speak with knowledge—that the suggestion so thrown out by Prince Gortchakoff would not have been accepted by some of the other Powers. In the next place, I am utterly at a loss to understand how my presence at the Conference would have been more effectual in insuring a satisfactory result than that of my noble Friend Lord Salisbury. Personally, I hold an exactly contrary opinion. But in truth the object with which the scheme was first formed could not be realized. The notion was that time would be saved, because there would be no occasion for the Ministers to refer to their Governments. But I need not tell your Lordship, that, under the system which prevails in this country, it would be impossible for any Minister for Foreign Affairs to take on himself the responsibility of deciding an important question of international policy without consulting his Colleagues who remained at home. Therefore, no time would have been saved and no advantages gained. I will not follow my noble Friend into the question of the degree of the responsibility which the Porte has incurred by breaking up the Conference. That is now a very useless consideration—the thing is done, whether it be wise or unwise. I regret it, and we have only now to endeavour to repair the mischief as best we can. I cannot agree with the proposition laid down by my noble Friend, that whatever the result of the Conference it could not affect our obligations under that Treaty. If he follows that argument out to its legitimate result, it means that if you here once bound yourself by Treaty to protect any State, you are equally bound to protect it, however unwisely that State may have acted, and though it may have put itself wholly in the wrong and been the cause of its own difficulties. I do not think that is a doctrine which my noble Friend or any one else will seriously entertain. My noble Friend went on to another proposition and said "our right to interfere

  1007
  ceases with the obligation to defend; "and he argued that, inasmuch as in September last, in the business of the Bulgarian massacres, we had taken on ourselves to interfere, that was an admission on our part that the duty of defence had not ceased. Now I do not care very much to argue abstract points of that kind; but I may remind my noble Friend—what I have stated on former occasions—that I consider our right of interference in the Bulgarian matter, whatever that interference might have been, was a right in no way resting on, or regulated by, Treaty. Our right turned upon this—that from that time until now we have been engaged in endeavouring to avert the imminent danger to which the Turkish Empire was exposed, and it was the moral support given to Turkey by our diplomacy that justified us in remonstrating and even protesting in the strongest language against acts which tended to make our assistance useless and our support impossible. I will not follow the 'noble Lord through the various other topics to which he adverted. The noble Lord says, if I understand him correctly, that matters are different now from what they were in former times; that we had now got a constituency which would not, to the same extent as formerly, feel the burdens of war, and upon which direct taxation would not press; and that therefore when once the nation came to engage in a war it would not be in a hurry to have it brought to a close. I am not sure that I understood what was the conclusion my noble Friend drew from that statement. For my own part I do not think that where national feelings are strongly excited material interests influence the nation to the extent supposed by my noble Friend. But if the fact be that those who are the ultimate depositories of power, once engaged in a war, do not care how long that war lasts, I think he has supplied us with the most conclusive argument to induce us to avoid, by every means we can honourably employ, so great a risk.
  LORD CAMPBELL: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl—and in fact I have several times refrained from doing so—but he has attributed to me a conclusion exactly the opposite to that which I intended to urge.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I beg my noble Friend's pardon, then. I certainly
  1008
  understood his arguments in an opposite sense. Another criticism of his was, that no effort had been made to avert in 1874 the union of the Three Powers. I do not understand what means my noble Friend or anybody else would have suggested in order to avert that union. The noble Lord said that we ought to have formed an alliance with certain of the Continental Powers; but my noble Friend must remember that we in England stand in a very different position in regard to those transactions from other Governments, such as Germany or Austria or Russia. We can keep back nothing from the public—we can give no pledge—we can enter into no secret alliances—we can hold out no inducement to any State to join us except our well-known desire for peace, and our friendly intentions towards all Powers, and that, of course, is not enough to offer when you are competing with Governments who are able to hold out offers of alliances offensive and defensive. The third point of my noble Friend was this—he says, you ought not to have said that you did not mean to fight for Turkey. I persume, in saying that, the noble Lord refers to the Dispatch of May last, which has been so frequently alluded to. Well, I think that the answer to that criticism is, that if we had not held that language at the time we did, we should have put ourselves in the wrong in two ways. In the first place—and that, in my opinion, is the more important matter—we should have been open to the imputation of misleading and deceiving the Turkish Government by the expectation of assistance which we did not intend to give; and, in the second place, if we had carefully suppressed our opinion upon that vital point, when that dispatch was written in May—if we had kept all the world in the dark as to our intentions before the autumn—I am quite sure we should have heard a great deal more of that mythical change of policy which has been attributed to us. Everyone would have said, and with some show of plausibility—" It is perfectly clear from your language and your general acts in May last that you intended to fight for Turkey; but you now say that you do not intend to fight for her." My Lords, self-defence must be a consideration with a Government as with the individual, and I do not think it was unreasonable on our part to put distinctly on record what

  1009
  our intention was at the time when it was quite possible that a different intention might have been imputed to us. My Lords, I have now gone through all the principal points in the two speeches to which we have listened. I will, in conclusion, express my hope that my noble Friend will be content with this discussion, and will not press his Motion to a division. There is nothing in the words of the Motion to which any objection can be taken. I think, however, that if my noble Friend is seeking by it to press upon us that which we are doing already, and asking us to persevere in that course of policy which we have actually adopted—that seems to me, to say the least of it, to be superfluous. But if that is not his object, if we are to take the Motion as a warning to the Government to adopt a different course of action than that on which we are engaged, then it is a Motion to which no Government could assent and continue to retain the administration of affairs. There is another consideration which will weigh with my noble Friend—which is this, that the adoption of a Motion of this character would not have much effect unless it were accompanied by a general concurrence of opinion on the subject and unless it were come to by both branches of the Legislature. That being the case I think that any division upon this Motion would only have the effect of exhibiting the appearance of difference and disunion amongst us on this grave subject, which I am happy to think do not exist.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I rise to make a few observations with reference to an accusation which the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey) has brought against me, of having used language with reference to the misgovernment of the Turkish Provinces which is open to misinterpretation on the ground that it exaggerates the effect of that misgovernment. I wish to say, emphatically, that in my opinion that language, instead of exaggerating the effect of that misgovernment, was entirely within the mark. No man who has read these Blue Books and the various Papers which have been presented to the House by Her Majesty's Government can fail to be convinced that no language can exaggerate the horrors which are weekly, daily, and hourly occurring in the Provinces under the government
  1010
  of Turkey. In my opinion, the attention of the country and of Parliament has been too much concentrated upon what are called the Bulgarian atrocities. Those undoubtedly were massacres on a great scale—similar to those which Turkey has in all ages had recourse to in suppressing insurrections; but the public mind is not sufficiently aware of the continual and normal oppression and persecution that goes on in these Provinces. I am quite sure that I do not desire to say anything hostile to the feelings or to the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this point, and I rejoice to hear from the noble Earl opposite so distinct and emphatic a declaration that Her Majesty's Government have still before their minds as the main objects of their policy to procure, by peaceful means, if possible, a real amelioration of the condition of the Christian Provinces of the Turkish Empire. But I wish every one of your Lordships and of those outside this House to understand that the language I have used is not exaggerated. Indeed, we have only to look at the accounts which have boon published in the Papers before us on the conduct of the Commission which has been sitting at Philippopolis to inquire into these atrocities to see in what manner the Government of Turkey will act even when put upon its good behaviour, and when it knows that the eyes of Europe are upon it. What is the account which is given us by Mr. Baring, week by week, and month by month, of the conduct of that Commission, and of the Government from which it issues? Although I came down armed with extracts from that gentleman's Report on this subject in case of such a charge as that which has been brought against me being raised, I will not now trouble your Lordships by reading them. This, however, I will say—that from the beginning of October, when that Commission first sat, until the present time the evidence of Mr. Baring is that the members of the Commission were determined, if they could, to screen the miscreants who perpetrated these outrages, and that it was only by his determined efforts that any hope could be entertained that justice would be done. And not only that—it was only through his exertions that the greatest scoundrel and villain connected with the perpetration of these atrocities was condemned to death—and

  1011
  his latest despatches inform us that the President and the body of the Commission were prepared to reverse that sentence; and why? Because they were afraid of the displeasure of the Porte—of the very Government which had appointed them. Look at the language used by Mr. Baring. He says it is impossible to be here even for a few weeks without seeing that the condition of the Christians in these Provinces is simply intolerable—and this is language which he uses many times over. I fee] that it would be impertinent in me to make any suggestions to Her Majesty's Government on this matter, and I much regret the exceedingly embarrassing position in which they are placed with respect to it. I have no Party feeling in this matter, and I sincerely desire to see whatever Government may be in office successful in their attempts to solve this grave question. My solemn belief, however, is that the Christian Provinces of Turkey were never in a worse condition than they are at the present moment; and I think there is danger that the sufferings of their inhabitants may be greatly aggravated by the failure of the Conference. I have read a copy of a proclamation which I am told has been issued in Bosnia, in which it is represented that the Porte has dismissed the Representatives of the Great Powers for having dared to interfere between the Turkish Government and its subjects, and requiring all the inhabitants of the district who have fled to return to their homes under the punishment of death. It is of course not possible to trace that document to its source, but I believe it to be a genuine one. I understand from the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs that it is contemplated to give the Porte twelve months' grace. I will not give any opinion upon that point; but I am doubtful whether the noble Earl can persuade the other Powers to make an experiment which the noble Marquess near him (the Marquess of Salisbury) has denounced as hopeless. I trust, however, that the Government will adopt some means by which civilized Europe may be made acquainted with what is going on in the interior of these Provinces—such as by appointing Consuls in the chief towns. As the Motion was originally placed upon the Paper it contained no allusion to the Christian
  1012
  subjects of Turkey. This was a case of leaving the character of Hamlet out of the play, and on re-consideration the noble Lord repaired the omission; but I would remark that in his speech he has made no allusion to that branch of the question—a branch which is in no way connected with mere statecraft, but affects the abominable and atrocious misgovernment of Turkey, which has become a scandal, a disgrace, and a danger to Europe.
  LORD BURYobserved that the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Campbell) differed materially from that of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) which was discussed a few nights ago, and which was a direct attack on Her Majesty's Government. It had been intimated in "another place" that this was not a fitting opportunity for discussing the affairs of the East, and the discussion had been postponed in consequence of that suggestion on the part of the Government. Now, the other House having refrained from discussion on the ground that it was inopportune to discuss the question at the present moment, it was not fair to force the hand of the Government on the present occasion.
  LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, as no one else, to my regret, has risen to address the House, I am compelled to do so for a few minutes before the question is disposed of. The speech of the noble Earl on the cross benches may have, I trust, a good effect both here and elsewhere, as it shows how little the races subject to the Porte could gain by the dominion with which it is intended to replace it. The noble Earl has not given his concurrence to the Motion. He is not in the habit of giving Motions his concurrence. It is not consistent with his habits; it may be his principles to do so. Some adverse criticism upon his part ought not to disturb any one who makes a proposition to your Lordships. As to the noble Earl the Secretary of State he has not failed to see that no want of confidence whatever in the Government is implied in the Address, the terms of which he is not able to object to. It would not suit the pleasure of the House were I to go through all the series of remarks the noble Earl the Secretary of State, has made upon my former statement, but I cannot avoid saying that the leading arguments by which it was attempted to prove that if

  1013
  adopted, the Motion would at least reduce the prospect of hostilities have been entirely unanswered. The noble Earl considers that the view I based upon the history of the Conference, as absolving the Ottoman authorities from all responsibility for the failure which ensued, to be too minute in its foundation. It was not grandiose indeed as regards the facts alluded to, but it by no means follows that it was inconclusive upon that account. A larger and more striking vindication of the Porte might very possibly be given. But, as it must involve attack upon the propositions, the noble Marquess, the late Plenipotentiary, might feel required to defend, and his defence of which would not at all contribute to the peace of Europe at this moment, I determined to avoid it. It may be requisite to say a word on the pungent observations which the noble Duke on the bench beneath (the Duke of Argyll) has left the House after delivering. The noble Duke had nothing to advance against the Motion, but he complains much of the revision it has gone through. It is not at all irregular to revise a Motion up to the time it finally appears. It would have been competent to me to give no Notice at all until the last night when the House was sitting. But as to the surmise of the noble Duke that the phrase "to improve the welfare of the races subject to the Ottoman Empire" was only due to the inspiration of another mind, my answer is a very easy one. It is taken almost verbatim from the Motion I submitted to your Lordships on the 31st of July, when the noble Duke was altogether absent, and when his zeal upon the Eastern Question had by no means risen to the formidable height at which it is now standing. As to the Motion, I decline absolutely to withdraw it. Such a course would involve me in too much responsibility, if events take the turn it is our object to prevent, unless it is accepted, which it ought to be, the Government shall have the task of acting with regard to it. They have the fullest information. They have the strongest motives to adopt the course which is least calculated to precipitate hostilities.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.