Sitting of 16 July 1877

MINUTES.
Supply—considered in Committee — CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS III.— LAW AND JUSTICE—Resolutions [July 12 and 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Solway Salmon Fisheries* [250]; Saint Catherine's Harbour, Jersey* [251]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [252]; Treasury Chest Fund* [253].
Committee — Report — Telegraphs (Money) * [227]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Felmingham, &c.) * [223].
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (£2,000,000)* and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT—CENTRAL AFRICA—THE KING OF UGANDA.—QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have received, or will endeavour to obtain, any assurances from the Khedive of Egypt that the freedom and independence of M'Tese, the friendly chief or king of the Uganda territory in Central Africa, will be respected; whether the Government have sent, or will send, instructions to the British Envoy in Egypt that it is their desire that the independence of M'Tese should be respected; and, what arrangements have been made by the Government to carry out the Resolution of the House of Commons in April 1876, regarding the payment to the Church Missionary Society for the expenses incurred by its agents in the maintenance and protection of liberated slaves?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that representations had been made to the Khedive of Egypt, and also to the British Envoy, Colonel Gordon, which he hoped would be the means of securing the freedom and independence of M'Tese, the Chief of the Uganda territory, and Her Majesty's Government had expressed a hope that the rights of M'Tese would be respected by the Khedive. In regard to the last part of the Question, relating to the liberated slaves, the words "Church Missionary Society" were not in the Resolution passed last
  1318
  year, but the Resolution was simply to make adequate provision for liberated slaves. Whatever he had said, however, he was prepared to stand by when the proper time arrived; but to give a grant from the public treasury to one particular society would be a matter of considerable difficulty. The subject, however, had not been lost sight of, but, on the contrary, several letters had passed upon it between the Government and Dr. Kirk, and he hoped before long that some information would be received by which the Resolution of the House of Commons would be given effect to.

THE GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND)—EMPLOYMENT OF CONSTABLES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report of a recent game trespass prosecution in Perthshire, in the course of which one of the county constables gave evidence to the effect that on a particular morning he had watched Lord Kinnoull's game for five or six hours; that when requested by the head gamekeeper he was sometimes weeks so engaged; that he was not paid by the Earl of Kinnoull; that lie was watching every week in the month, and he believed every constable was the same, "it was their duty to do so;" whether one-half the wages of these constables is paid from the Imperial Treasury; whether it is the duty of constables to watch game; and, if not, whether he will take steps to prevent the employment of constables as game watchers?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he was informed that the constable had misstated the facts of the case. Under the General Police (Scotland) Act, 1857, Section 7, the chief constable, on the application of any person, with the approval of the Sheriff, might appoint and cause to be sworn in an additional number of constables within the limits of his authority at the charge of the person or persons making the application. He was informed that the constable in question was appointed under the statute not simply to watch the game, but to keep order in the neighbourhood of Lord Kinnoull's place. The man was paid entirely in that way, and

  1319
  under the Act he became of course part of the police force; but the whole of the payment came from Lord Kinnoull, and not from the State. With regard to the statement of the constable, that it was his duty to watch game, all he (Mr. Cross) had to say was that it was not so. It was not the duty of the constable to watch game, and if found employing his time in that manner be would not be doing his duty as a constable, and would not be entitled to payment from the State.

  TURKEY—BULGARIA—THE PROTECTORATE OF THE CZAR. — QUESTION.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can lay upon the Table of the House an authentic Copy of the Czar's Address to the Bulgarian people; whether Her Majesty's Government has any information confirming the statement of the "Times" correspondent at Berlin, a distinguished philologist, to the following effect:—
  "That Prince Tcherkasski's design for the reorganisation of Bulgaria includes the introduction of the Russian language in the Army and Civil Service, and the immediate transfer of all the landed property to the Christians —the introduction of the Russian language involving the appointment of Russian civil and military officers, no Bulgarian being able to read a line of Russian unless he has studied the language or acquired it in Russia;"
  and, if this be true, whether Her Majesty's Government will not protest against a proceeding inconsistent with the solemn assurances of the Czar and of the Russian Government at and before the commencement of the war? He might add, in explanation of the Question, that three different translations, each varying from the other, of the Czar's proclamation had already appeared.
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received a copy of the Czar's proclamation in Bulgaria, and there will be no objection to lay it on the Table. With regard to Prince Tcherkasski, we have also beard from Bucharest that he is charged with the re-organization of Bulgaria, and is accompanied by 400 civil employés. As to the other parts of the hon. Member's Question, we have not received any official information, and therefore I need say nothing respecting it.

  H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE"—THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can name to the House the Committee who are to investigate the question as to the stability of H.M.S. "Inflexible?"
  MR. A. F. EGERTON, in reply, said, that Admiral Sir James Hope, Mr. George Rendell, Mr. Froude, and Mr. Woolley had been appointed to investigate the stability of the vessel referred to.
  MR. GOURLEYasked if the Mr. Rendell in question was the gentleman who had the contract for the completion of the Thunderer?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON, in reply, said he was not certain that that was the case; but the Mr. Rendell in question was a very well-known engineer in the North, and was supposed to be fully competent to investigate such questions as would be placed before the Committee.

  METROPOLIS WATER ACT, 1871— SOUTHWARK AND VAUXHALL WATER-SUPPLY.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the Report of Dr. Frankland upon the water supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company—that it is "full of moving organisms, and contains an excessive proportion of organic impurity;" and, if he will take steps to insure a supply of pure water from that Company?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, my attention has been called to the recent Report of Dr. Frankland to which my bon. and gallant Friend refers. But complaints bad previously been made to me by the Wandsworth District Board of Works as to the state of the water supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company, which has for some time been unsatisfactory, and the Water Examiner has, by my directions, been in communication with the company on the subject during the last two months. On the 4th of July last I issued an Order directing that a special inquiry under Section 35 of the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, should be held by Major Bolton, and that inquiry will be held immediately. It is fair to add that the company have been incurring a large expenditure dur-

  1321
  ing the past year for renewal of their filters at Hampton and Battersea, a work which they admit to have been too long neglected. It remains to be ascertained what further works may be necessary to put this company's supply into a satisfactory state, and what effect the works already executed will have upon it.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL-POX (METROPOLIS).—QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will state to the House the present condition of the Metropolis with respect to small pox; and, whether any and what measures are being taken or fostered by him to prevent or check the prevalence of the disease in the future?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, according to the latest accounts there are 621 inmates of the five metropolitan hospitals. This number as compared with numbers ranging from 850 to 950 during April and May, must be considered comparatively satisfactory. There is also spare accommodation for 483 cases now available for the pauper and poorer classes of patients, so that there are means for the treatment of all who might require to be brought under care in the metropolis. It may be said, generally, that the epidemic is abating, and that the increased amount of accommodation available, together with increased activity in effecting removals and greater attention to vaccination, has enabled the authorities to hold the disease in better check than was the case when the last epidemic prevailed. Some of the Vestries have provided accommodation, and some Vestries and Boards of Guardians have taken steps by house-to-house visitation to insure greater attention to the practice of vaccination. Although, as I have said, the epidemic appears to be subsiding, it is not yet at an end. I shall, however, take care to have its history investigated and the experience of the last 12 months collected and put into shape, with the view of considering whether further legislation is required. Meanwhile, as the House is aware, I have caused several clauses, which I think may be useful, to be inserted in the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill.

ARMY—MEDICAL SERVICE, INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  DR. LUSHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the rumour that the Local Medical Department in India is about to be abolished and that the administration of the Army Medical Service in India is to be in future in the hands of the Indian Government only, is correct; and, if he has any objection to state the grounds of the proposed change?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the Government of India have for some time past had the whole question of the Army Medical Service in India under their consideration, but they have not communicated any conclusions. I am not, therefore, in a position to be able to state what modifications may be proposed, or the reasons for them.

THE PERSIAN EMBASSY, 1873.

  QUESTION.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken, and what further steps it is proposed to take, to secure payment to English creditors of debts incurred by members of the Persian Embassy in the year 1873?
  MR. BOURKE: In reply to my hon. and learned Friend I have to state that the steps taken in favour of the creditors of the Persian Embassy in 1873 are these—The applications of the different creditors that were sent to the Foreign Office have been sent to Her Majesty's Minister at Teheran, and some of them have been presented to the Persian Government. From the last reports it appears that the late Chargé d'Affaires of the Persian Mission in England had announced his intention of paying his English creditors whenever his circumstances would permit. It is not the intention of Lord Derby to take any further steps in the matter than by referring the applications of the creditors which may from time to time come to the Foreign Office to the Persian Government at Teheran.

  LOCAL FINANCE — SCOTCH, WELSH, AND COLONIAL LOANS.—QUESTION.
  GENEEAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, To

  1323
  state if the Public Works Loan Board can be called on to show Scotch loans, Welsh loans, and Colonial loans; also to render detailed statements of the separate loans outstanding on the date the new Board was formed, with rates of interest, duration of loan, and annuity to pay off the individual loans; also to show all loans to Harbours under the Passing Tolls, &c. Act, 1861, with details relating thereto?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that a Return of a similar character was moved for in 1871; but he did not think it desirable such Returns should be made too frequently, as it would involve a serious interference with the business of the Office. He therefore hoped the matter would not be pressed. But he would consider, in concert with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, whether those Returns might not be made every 10 years.

  CRIMINAL LAW—SANE AND INSANE PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government that the State should assume the custody and bear the cost of maintenance of insane as well as of sane prisoners; and, whether, in the event of this not being so, the local authority on whom the cost of maintaining insane prisoners falls is entitled in the case of such prisoners to the Government allowance of four shillings per week which is given in the case of lunatic paupers?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he must divide these prisoners into two classes. The first were those acquitted on the ground of insanity, but detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. Those properly were not criminal prisoners, and the fact that they were detained could make no difference. The Prisons Act made no change with regard to their maintenance. With regard to those persons who were convicted and afterwards became insane, so long as they were in detention under their sentences the whole expenditure would be borne by the State. When their sentences expired, owing to their being lunatics, it might be necessary to keep them in detention. They would then become pauper lunatics and chargeable
  1324
  to the county, and the Government allowance for pauper lunatics would, of course, be made in such cases.

POST OFFICE TELEGRAPH DEPART. MENT—THE ROYAL ENGINEERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Postmaster General, Whether any proposals have passed, and, if so, whether they have been entertained by his Department, with a view to substituting military for civil employés in the Postal Telegraph Departments?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, it had been decided to employ the Royal Engineers in the Postal Telegraph Service to the extent desired by the Secretary of State for War, and, consequently, that the whole of the South of England from the Thames to Land's End would be placed under their charge.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY—TURKISH BLOCKADE OF THE BLACK SEA.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to the recent cruise in the Black Sea of the Russian Government steamers "Constantin" and "Vladimir," in the course of which they met no Turkish men-of-war, but on the contrary succeeded in capturing certain Turkish merchantmen; and, whether there is not reason to believe that the Turkish blockade of the coasts of Russia is so intermittent as to be "ineffective?"
  MR. BOURKE: Her Majesty's Government have been informed that the Russian Government's cruisers have captured Turkish merchantmen in the Black Sea; but the information at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government is not sufficient to enable us to say whether the blockade is efficient or not.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsubsequently asked, Whether Her Majesty's Government were taking steps to inform themselves as to the efficiency of the blockade?
  MR. BOURKEsaid, he had received no Notice of the Question.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would put it to-morrow.

NAVY—H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE."

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in the "Times" of the 13th inst., signed E. J. Reed, House of Commons, July 11th, in which it was alleged that, with reference to the Return, Navy (H.M.S. "Inflexible") No. 295,
  "the figures given in the table on page 10 as representing the case are wrong in respect of both ships, as the sheet of diagrams and the small-type foot-note on page 11 clearly shows;"
  also to the fact that the present Chief Constructor in the said Return, at page 19, makes grave statements against the greater portion of the ironclad vessels designed by the late Chief Constructor; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will not consider the desirability of an inquiry into the whole subject being made by a Select Committee of this House, instead of a limited inquiry by an Admiralty Committee as at present contemplated?
  MR. A. P. EGERTON, in reply, said, he begged to inform the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had seen the letter, and it was his duty to state that the Admiralty was not prepared to recommend either that the question relating to the Inflexible, or the larger questions connected with our iron-clad Fleet, past, present, or future, should be referred to a Committee of that House.
  CAPTAIN PIM: Then I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall repeat my Question in another form.

  PERU—THE PERUVIAN IRONCLAD "HUASCAR."—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has any objection to place upon the Table of the House the Despatches which reached the Admiralty on Wednesday night or Thursday morning last from Rear Admiral de Horsey reporting the particulars of the encounter of Her Majesty's ships "Shah" and "Amethyst" with the Peruvian ironclad "Huascar?"
  MR. A. F. EGERTON, in reply, said, there would be no objection to lay on Table the Paper referred to; but in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it would be very inconvenient to lay it
  1326
  on the Table until they were able to lay on the Table at the same time the judgment of the Admiralty respecting it. The Papers were now in the hands of the Law Officers of the Crown, and he trusted their opinion would not long be delayed.

  CATTLE DISEASE (IRELAND) ACT—IMPORTATION OE STOCK INTO IRELAND.—QUESTION.
  MR. PEMBERTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Irish Privy Council have considered the expediency of relaxing the regulations prohibiting the importation of stock into Ireland from Great Britain, especially of sheep and pigs, which cannot convey any infection of cattle plague?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, it has been thought better to retain these restrictions in force while any risk remained; and I believe the cordon which was established round the London metropolitan district has not yet been removed. But the Privy Council probably will shortly again allow the importation of stock into Ireland, especially sheep and pigs.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS AND TENANT-RIGHT.—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Who it was communicated to the Education Board information that Michael and Patrick Gurney, the teachers of the National School, Headford, county Galway, had attended a tenant right meeting; whether such information was anonymous; and, whether it is not a violation of the Board's own rules to attend to anonymous communications affecting the position of teachers?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I understand that the information on which the Commissioners acted in this matter was a report in a newspaper, which was forwarded to them, of a tenant-right meeting, in which report it was stated that Michael and Patrick Gurney were among the persons attending the meeting. I think a report of the kind could scarcely be held to fall under the rule of the Board against attending to anonymous communications.

  CRIMINAL LAW — ALLEGED MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE — CASE OF STY-RAN AND CROWTHER.—QUESTION.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called by a Memorial signed by 250 of the attorneys, merchants, tradesmen, and others, of the town of Driffield, to the fact that two men, of the names of Styran and Crowther, in the employment of Taylor's Patent Sewing Machine Company Limited, were sentenced by the justices at the Driffield Petty Sessions, on the 14th June last, to a fine and costs, amounting to £2 17 s. 6d. each, or, in default, to six weeks' imprisonment; and, further, that notwithstanding this sentence, and the tender of the money on behalf of the men within seventeen minutes of the decision, the magistrates' clerk refused to receive it, and made out the commitment to the Beverley House of Correction, omitting entirely that part of the decision which gave the men the option of a fine; and, whether he will recommend compliance with the prayer of the Memorial?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, that if the facts of the case were as stated by the hon. Member, he would at once have acted in accordance with the suggestion made in the Question; but he was assured by the magistrates that the facts were not as stated. The men did not get the option of a fine, but had been convicted of stealing, and that under an Act of Parliament according to which the magistrates had, in their judgment, no option but absolute imprisonment. Indeed, he was assured by the magistrates that even had they possessed the power, they would not have exercised it. The whole matter as to the fine and costs of each prisoner amounting to £2 17 s. 6d., and the option, probably arose from some statement made by the Chairman of the Bench at the beginning of the proceedings, but which had nothing to do with the final determination which was arrived at.

  NATIONAL TEACHERS ACT, 1875— WORKHOUSE TEACHERS. —QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to take steps to secure to the Irish work-
  1328
  house national teachers the same privileges as regards results fees earned under the conditions laid down by the Commissioners of National Education as are possessed by the ordinary national school teachers?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the National Teachers Act of 1875 allowed the Board of Guardians of any Union to vote results fees to the teachers of the workhouse school. But I do not think it would be possible to place these teachers on precisely the same footing as other teachers in this respect. Their general position is very different, and in some points much superior, to that of the ordinary national teachers.

  IRISH LAND ACT, 1870—CLERKS OF THE PEACE (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the reduction from £80 to £45 recently made by the Treasury in the salary fixed in 1874 to be paid to the clerk of the peace for the county of Londonderry in respect of his services under the Land Act of 1870 has been made with the knowledge and concurrence of the Lord Lieutenant or Lord Chancellor of Ireland; and, if he will lay upon the Table any Correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Executive upon the subject of that and similar reductions?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, this reduction has been made in accordance with the general arrangement on the subject which was arrived at in 1874 by the Treasury, with the concurrence of the Irish Government. This arrangement was to fix the salary for a term of three years on the average number of days occupied in the work during the three preceding years, allowing £3 3s. a-day for each day's attendance at land sessions, whether business was done or not; and a certain addition for office expenses. On this basis the salary of the clerk of the peace for county Londonderry was fixed at £66 3s. for salary and £13 17 s. for office expenses, making a total of £80. But when, in the present year, the time came to revise these salaries, it was found that in the three years since 1874 the business had so much decreased, as compared with the three years before 1874, that the salary, calculated on the same basis, must be reduced to £45. I do not think

  1329
  the correspondence would give any more information than that which I have stated to the House, and therefore I do not propose to lay it on the Table.

  THE CATTLE PLAGUE—SPREAD OF THE DISEASE.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is true that rinderpest has again broken out in a dairy in the metropolitan district; if he will state the circumstances; and, whether any attempt was made to conceal the disease by the owner of the dairy; and, also, whether the dairy was previously under inspection?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I am very sorry to say that a fresh outbreak of the cattle plague has been detected at Bethnal Green in a shed containing 10 cows, seven of which were affected by it. They were all slaughtered at 5 P.M. yesterday, after being condemned by the Inspector of the Privy Council, Mr. Cope. The owner did not make any report of the sickness amongst the cows, as required by the Order in Council. The origin of this outbreak, I am sorry to say, has not been traced as yet. Fortunately, the Order under which no animal is to be allowed to leave the metropolis alive is still in force, and also the Orders under which the Privy Council deal with cattle plague in the metropolis. This afternoon we have passed an Order in Council restricting the movement of cattle in the metropolis north of the Thames except for immediate slaughter; and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we will take every step to check the outbreak as far as we can.

  PLUMSTEAD COMMON — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. Booed,
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government did not think that the case of Messrs. Cowing and Deadman, who were imprisoned upon an order for payment of costs in their unsuccessful suit against the Crown, but were afterwards released by the order of the Government, was one in which compensation ought to be given.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  CONTROLLER OF THE STATIONERY OFFICE—APPOINTMENT OF MR. T. D. PIGOTT.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. J. HOLMS, in rising to move—
  "That, having regard to the recommendations made in 1874 by the Select Committee on Public Departments (Purchases, &c), this House is of opinion that the recent appointment of Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is calculated to diminish the usefulness and influence of Select Committees of this House, and to discourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State,"
  said, that the Committee in question was appointed in 1873, and numbered amongst its Members three of the present Ministry and two ex-Ministers. They devoted the greater part of their time to an inquiry into the Stationery Department, which they found to be sui generis in its relations to the Treasury, being, in fact, practically under the control of the Treasury, of which its head was an executive officer. The character and extent of the work in the Stationery Department were shown by the fact that in 1872–3 £484,000 was expended in contracts for paper, printing, bookbinding, and small stores, and the total expenditure, taking the Post Office, the Gazettes, and other, branches, amounted to a total of £680,000. Of these, the sale and distribution of Parliamentary Papers came to £100,000 a-year. There was also, under its roof, a department which had to do with the Gazettes, yielding a profit in 1874 of £27,000. It was, in fact, a miscellaneous Department, demanding in its head much knowledge and experience. The Committee did not regard the late Controller (Mr. W. R. Greg) as being fully acquainted with the t stationery trade, the fact being, as he (Mr. Holms) believed, that he was appointed by Lord Palmerston, very much because he was a man of literary attainments, and not because he was acquainted with the stationery trade. He entered upon his office perhaps under the impression that he was to some extent

  1331
  free to do what he liked. It had indeed been said of the office of Controller of the Stationery Department, that it was "the Deanery of the Civil Service." It appeared that Mr. Greg was not well acquainted with the duties of his office, nor was it to be wondered at, seeing that he only came down for a few hours at the end of the day to sign cheques, money orders, and documents of that kind. Fortunately, he had next to him a gentleman, Mr. Reid, who showed such knowledge and ability that it was believed that, if he had not been in a secondary position, a great saving might have been effected. Since 1874 the Department had been under leading strings to the Treasury, and the present Secretary to the Treasury was well acquainted with its details, and during the last two years good work had been done. The amount saved last year, for example, on certain items of the Vote of £494,000 was £45,000, or something like 9 per cent; and he was told that a saving of £25,000 additional was anticipated on other Votes next year, making, on the whole, a saving of over £70,000. Now, that sum was a saving in the work done for Home Departments alone. Well, in relation to the Indian Department they were bound, he considered, to pay attention to it; and it was to be hoped that there would be a saving in work done in that Department to the same proportion. But although the Stationery Department had been well managed since it had had the assistance of the Secretary to the Treasury, the House could not always expect to have the aid of one who was so well versed in the business of the Department. What was wanted, therefore, was that the Controller of the Stationery Office should himself be practically acquainted with his work. The Committee accordingly recommended that at the next vacancy provision should be made for placing under one officer, who should possess the requisite technical knowledge of stationery and printing, the control of all the details of the Stationery Office and the management of the London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Gazettes subject to the Treasury. They also reported that great public convenience would be attained if the whole arrangement of the sales and the distribution of Parliamentary Papers and Government Papers
  1332
  were under the care of the Controller, and that a central depot might be established. The spirit of the recommendations of the Committee was, that the head of the Department should have his duties somewhat increased, and that he should be practically acquainted with the trade, as if he were really a stationer. The evidence taken by the Select Committee was very voluminous, and as to any part of the Report, there was very little difference of opinion, while in respect to the Stationery Department, the Committee were unanimous. They could not expect a first-rate man for the salary paid to the late Controller, but it would be better to pay £2,000, £3,000, £4,000 or £5,000 a-year to get such a man. The question was, How far did the recent appointment to the head of the Stationery Department meet those recommendations? The gentleman appointed was Mr. T. Digby Pigott, against whom he had not a word to say, everything he had heard of him being greatly to his credit. But who was Mr. Pigott? He was first introduced in the year 1859 as a temporary clerk in the War Office, and became one of the establishment in 1860. Subsequently, he became Secretary to the several Under Secretaries of State for War, and upon one occasion was Secretary to a Royal Commission—that upon the Promotion and Retirement of Army Officers. When appointed to the office of Controller of the Stationery Office he was one of 101 junior clerks in the War Office, being 69th upon the list, and in receipt, he believed, of £300 or £400 a-year. It was not pretended that he possessed the qualifications laid down in the recommendations of the Committee; he was not exactly the man the Committee had had in mind in making those recommendations. Indeed, the Secretary to the Treasury stated, in reply to a Question put on the 18th of June last, that Mr. Pigott did not possess any technical knowledge of stationery or the like, adding, however, that the Prime Minister had given careful consideration to the Report of the Select Committee. Well, if the noble Lord had, he (Mr. Holms) could not but think that a very different man would have been appointed. He was afraid that in this, as in some other appointments made by the Prime Minister, the interests of the country had not

  1333
  been foremost in his mind, and that there had been something behind. How was it in the present case? He did not know what was behind; but he understood that Mr. Pigott was a son of the late rector of Hughenden, who, he believed, with his family, had rendered valuable assistance to the Prime Minister in that county which he had so long and so creditably represented. Was such an appointment, he asked, fair to the country? Was it fair to the Civil Service? Either the position was to be regarded as a sinecure, or it was not. If the man to hold it should be well acquainted with the duties to be performed, then Mr. Pigott was not the man. If, on the other hand, it was to be considered as a prize for State purposes, it would not be contended that Mr. Pigott had rendered such valuable services to the State as that he should be appointed. The predecessor of Mr. Greg, the late Mr. M'Culloch, was not only eminent in literature, but was perfectly well acquainted with the details of the Department over which he presided. Mr. Greg was not, but he was eminent in literature. Mr. Pigott knew nothing about stationery, nor was he eminent in a literary walk of life. In the Department itself might have been found a man who stood next to Mr. Greg, and was every way suited to the position of Controller. He alluded to Mr. Reid, who was in receipt of £700 a-year, and there was also the editor of the Gazette, who received about £800 a-year; and it had been owned by the Secretary to the Treasury that there were many able men in the Department. But if even that were not so was it not possible to find a suitable man outside it? Surely it was. He could not believe that the appointment would be defended by any right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. But he came to the broad question of the value of Select Committees of that House. Was the House of Commons prepared to admit that Select Committees which had done good service in the past with respect to public Departments, and the expenditure of public money were to be regarded not as a reality, but as a sham? Were their recommendations to be treated as mere waste paper? He did not believe so; for if they were, then he could not but think that hon. Members would lose all interest in serv-
  1334
  ing on them or in moving for their appointment. Then the House should consider the effect of such an appointment on the Civil Service generally. It would produce a feeling of great disappointment, for had the promotion been within the Department a step would have been given to 50 or 60 employés. Instead of that, the Service would see that a junior clerk had been lifted from the War Office and placed at the head of a great public Department. It was not a little remarkable that a Royal Commission of which Mr. Pigott had acted as Secretary, was the Commission on Retirement and Promotion in the Army, the object of which was to obtain a flow of promotion in the Army; but if a flow of promotion was good for the Army, was it not also good for the Civil Service? He hoped the House would support the Resolution, as in doing so it would establish its own dignity and authority, and enter an emphatic protest against the appointment which had been made. As Chairman of the Select Committee to which he had referred, he felt it his duty to draw the attention of the House to the subject, and to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. MELLORseconded the Motion. He was a Member of the Committee presided over so ably by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), and he fully concurred in the conclusions at which it had arrived. There was great necessity for the Motion which had been made, for he believed that, unless the House of Commons pronounced a decision on the question on the present occasion, the principle of political patronage would be extended in a direction that had already gone too far. His own practical experience, extending over 45 years, had led him to the conclusion that men ought to be selected for public appointments on account of their qualifications and the knowledge of the duties to be entrusted to them; and unless they proceeded in that direction more than they had done hitherto, not only would additional expense be entailed upon the country, but the work of the nation would not be properly performed.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "having regard to the recommendations made in 1874 by the Select Committee on Public Departments (Purchases, &c), this House is

  1335
  of opinion that the recent appointment of Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is calculated to diminish the usefulness and influence of Select Committees of this House, and to discourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State," —(Mr. John Holms,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. A. H. BROWN, as a Member of the Select Committee, wished to add a few remarks, and in particular to direct attention to the character of this Department. It was in reality rather a sub-department of the Treasury than an independent Department, and consequently there was no reason why the head of it should be a person of political importance. He ought, rather, to be thoroughly acquainted with the paper trade, which, almost more than any other trade, abounded in technicalities. In fact, a knowledge of the printing trade was essential in order to direct the Department efficiently, and it must necessarily be difficult for a junior clerk in the War Office, not possessed of that knowledge, to perform his duties satisfactorily. Many gentlemen who had been long employed in the Stationery Office came before the Committee and gave most valuable evidence. Their position had been ignored and a younger man was promoted over their heads. This would, of course, tend to discourage all those gentlemen who had been superseded, and could not be for the benefit of the Public Service. He had no knowledge of the gentleman who had been promoted to the office, but he regretted that the appointment had been made. If Select Committees were to be of any value, their Reports ought not to be passed over without being fully and carefully considered.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) and the remarks made by him, together with those with which the hon. Member for Wenlock (Mr. A. H. Brown) had supported it, raised a somewhat false issue with regard to the functions of Select Committees of that House. Both those hon. Gentlemen had spoken as though the appointment of Mr. Pigott to the Controllership of the Stationery Office, instead of the appointment of someone who possessed "a technical knowledge of stationery and printing," was an appointment calculated to diminish the usefulness and influence of Select Com-
  1336
  mittees. Moreover, the language of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would rather lead the Committee to suppose that the whole object of the Committee of which he was a Member had been to consider what ought to be the organization of the Stationery Office; that the Committee had spent two years in considering that subject; and that it had made with reference to it a recommendation which had been summarily set aside. Now, he did not think that this was doing justice to the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member. That Committee did not spend two years in considering so minute a point as the character of the person who should be placed at the head of the Stationery Office. It was a Committee appointed for an important purpose— namely,
  "To inquire into and report upon the existing principles and practice which in the several Public Departments regulate the Purchase and Sale of Materials and Stores."
  The Committee sent in a Report containing no fewer than 134 paragraphs, and only a portion of one paragraph had been specially referred to in the present discussion. Undoubtedly, the recommendations which the Committee made with reference to the Stationery Office formed one of the most important parts of the Report; but they had also made a great many other recommendations with regard to that Department. Those recommendations had been carefully considered, and to no inconsiderable extent acted upon by the Treasury. Looking to the general principles on which the Stationery Office ought to be administered, he found the Committee did not recommend any alteration in the control of the Office by the Treasury. As had been acknowledged by the hon. Member for Hackney, the Treasury, since the Committee was appointed, had bestowed a great deal of attention on the management of this Department. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn) had, in fact, introduced no inconsiderable improvements into the working of the Department, and had made a considerable reduction in its expenditure. It was not therefore fair to say, even if the recommendation as to the choice of the person who should succeed the late Controller was not acted upon, that the recommen-

  1337
  dations of the Committee were treated as being worthless. The Treasury had endeavoured to carry into effect some of the recommendations of the Committee with but partial success. For instance, with regard to the publication of a cheap edition of the Statutes and the arrangements to be made for the sale of the Papers of the two Houses of Parliament, the Treasury, in deference to the recommendations of the Committee, had made attempts which he believed had not, thus far, proved successful. And now he came to the question of the selection of a proper person to be at the head of that Department, which, in the view of the Committee, was to be, not an independent Department, but one under the control of the Treasury. Undoubtedly, the Committee did recommend that the gentleman who succeeded Mr. Greg as head of the Stationery Office should possess a technical knowledge of stationery and printing; and when the appointment came to be filled up he was aware that his noble Friend (the Earl of Beaconsfield) had his attention especially directed to that recommendation, and that he gave it his consideration. [Laughter.] Well, but his noble Friend took a different view of the necessity for appointing a gentleman who was technically acquainted with stationery and printing, and therefore might be said to have been connected with the trade, from that at which the Committee arrived. The responsibility in this matter did not rest with the Committee, but with the First Lord of the Treasury, and there were several considerations which would naturally present themselves to his mind when he had this appointment to fill up. It would be a matter of some difficulty and delicacy to take a person out of the stationery trade and appoint him to the office of Controller. It was by no means certain that they would be able to find among the successful members of that branch of trade one who, for the remuneration the Treasury could offer, would be disposed to abandon a business he was conducting with success in order to accept this office. Therefore, the choice among those in the trade was, to a certain extent, limited; and, of course, if they took a man who had been uusuccessful in business, objections would be raised to him also, and the same would be the case if the man appointed were connected with any particular house in the
  1338
  trade. Altogether, the choice of a man for an office of so much importance involved many considerations beyond those which appeared to enter into the view taken by the Committee, and it was not enough to take a man with merely technical knowledge. The Prime Minister, upon whom, as he had said, the responsibility rested, therefore, acting on the best of his judgment, came to the conclusion that it was not desirable, at least at the present time, to seek for a gentleman possessing the peculiar qualifications referred to. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) himself doubted, from the observations which had been made on the present occasion, whether the Members of the Committee themselves were in their own minds so thoroughly persuaded of the necessity of the appointment being made on the principle laid down in the Report; because the hon. Member for Hackney said that they should either have taken a gentleman who was practically acquainted with the trade, or promoted the gentleman who was second in command in the existing Stationery Office. However reasonable it might be, the suggestion of that alternative showed that the Committee did not consider it absolutely necessary that the person appointed should be practically acquainted with the stationery and printing trades. No doubt, if Mr. Reid, the second in command, were appointed, they would have a gentleman whose merits were very high, and in whom the Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for Lincolnshire had the greatest confidence. On the other hand, it was not a necessary rule that promotion must always take place within each Department, and reasons might easily be suggested why a man might be advantageously brought in from another Department. He would come with a fresh mind and bring a fresh eye to bear on any abuses which might exist. The hon. Member for Hackney said that Mr. Pigott was not a man who, from his previous services, was entitled to what he humorously termed the "deanery of the Civil Service." If this were to be regarded as an honorary appointment, with but little work to do, given to men for good services in other Departments of the State, no doubt Mr. Pigott would not be a proper person to select. But he was selected as being a man comparatively young, who had jus-

  1339
  tified by his character and abilities the expectations formed respecting him when he first entered the Public Service. It was said, and great stress was laid upon the fact, that he was the son of the former vicar of Hughenden. His noble Friend (the Earl of Beaconsfield), with whom he had had some conversation on the subject, told him that he had very little personal knowledge of Mr. Pigott, except that he had on his early introduction to the Public Service been pointed out to him as a young man of great ability, and likely to be a valuable public servant; that he had watched his career with some interest on account of his connection with a former vicar of Hughenden, and had uniformly found that he was spoken of very highly by those who had had opportunities of observing his career. He had been employed from time to time in duties rather above the ordinary duties of a clerk, and had been selected for particular services of an important character. He was in the prime of life, with 17 years of Public Service, and had shown himself to be a really good man of business. Under his charge there was every prospect that the work of the Department would be well performed. These, and no others, were the reasons which, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was informed by the Prime Minister, influenced him in making this appointment, which he did with a consciousness of the arguments that could be used for and against the selection of men in the trade, and with a full sense of the good services and merits of Mr. Reid, the second in the office. He believed in the personal fitness of Mr. Pigott, having observed his career from time to time since he entered the Public Service. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think that these circumstances at all justified the censure which it was proposed to pass upon the appointment.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was not at all disposed to regard the affair from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). At a time when they were doing their best to improve the status of the Civil Servants, it would be an unfortunate course to adopt, and altogether a departure from sound principle and common practice, if they were to say to men who had nearly reached the top of the tree—"No matter how long your
  1340
  services, or how great your efficiency may be, you will not be promoted to the headship of your Department, but we shall take a junior clerk out of another office who knows nothing about the business and appoint him over you, in order to have the advantage of a fresh mind. He did not know how far that doctrine might be carried; but if a man was to be appointed not because of his knowledge and experience, but because he came from somewhere else, and knew nothing of the particular business he would have to discharge, then, indeed, it would be a sorry look-out for the members of the Civil Service, who entered through the painful door of competitive examination in the hope that if they did their duty they would be promoted to the highest offices in the Department in which they were placed. That appeared to him to be the most salient point in the present controversy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer doubted whether the best course in filling up this office was to appoint the man who had the most practical experience; but in any case, it was, to say the least of it, very singular that when the claims of two men of equal experience conflicted, a third, of no experience at all, should be chosen. The present action of the Government seemed to him to be a most extraordinary way of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee. Several pages of the Committee's Report were occupied with recommendations affecting the Stationery Office, and the paragraph to which the Motion referred was not dashed off by the Chairman, or some particular Member, but it was prepared with very great care, and was considerably altered in its wording, and it was ultimately passed heartily and unanimously by the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said that the Prime Minister had not thought fit to adopt the recommendation of the Committee, but those words might have two meanings. Either they might mean that the Prime Minister had carefully considered these recommendations, that he approved of them, that he had looked about inside the Department to find a man capable of fulfilling the requirements, but that, unable to find one, he had, as a last resort, appointed Mr. Pigott; or that, without the least inquiry or consideration, he had given Mr. Pigott the post off-hand. What he

  1341
  wanted to know was, whether the recommendation of the Committee was carefully considered by the Government, and was the appointment made afterwards, or was it made without any consideration whatever, and simply by the whim of the Prime Minister? The House was entitled to an answer to those questions, and he could only say that if Mr. Pigott had been appointed by the Prime Minister in the way he had suggested, the House should show their disapproval of such a proceeding by agreeing to the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it would have been much more satisfactory to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms), with whom he had sat on the Committee, if the Prime Minister were able to be present, and then no doubt the House would have had an able and amusing speech in defence of the appointment. But no one would say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his ingenious speech had defended the appointment, though he had made certain excuses for it. But if the House of Commons really wished to see the position in which it was placed, it must go back and consider this as only one of a series of similar appointments which had been made since this Government came into office, and had formed the subject of animadversion in the House. A noble Lord who had sat in the House (Lord Hampton) had been placed at the head of the Civil Service Examiners, another right hon. Gentleman (Sir Seymour Fitzgerald) had been appointed a Chief Commissioner of Charities, and they had had a most remarkable and humiliating debate relative to some of the legal departments of the present Government as to the appointment of Official Referees. These latter appointments had turned out to be entirely useless, and no one would forget the speech of the late Attorney General (Sir Henry James) on that subject. But what were the facts with respect to the present case? The Committee inquired into five great public Departments, and of these they found only one working in a very efficient manner—namely, the Admiralty, which was the result of the appointment of the Purchaser of Stores. All the rest were found inefficient in their working, but the most defective of all was this Stationery Office, under which there was an
  1342
  expenditure of something like £600,000 a-year. He did not wish to say anything of the late head of that Department (Mr. Greg); but no one who heard the evidence of that gentleman could doubt that he really knew practically little of the working of the Stationery Office, and he had to apply constantly to the second in command (Mr. Reid), who had been passed over in this appointment, for any information. If it was true that the Secretary to the Treasury and the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn) had been able to effect a saving of £45,000 a-year in one portion of the Stationery Office and expected to be able to save £20,000 in another, could anything prove more strongly the necessity for reform in the entire Department, and the value of putting a practical man at the head of it? The printing and stationery of this country had grown to an enormous amount. When Mr. Greg was appointed, it was not because he had any practical acquaintance with its working, but because he had claims on the Government and was a distinguished literary man. He, too, like Mr. Pigott, had been brought in from abroad, and the consequence was, that the office when inquired into was found to be grossly extravagant, seeing that it only required the efforts of two Members of the Government to save this enormous amount of money. The recommendations of the Committee had been disregarded, and disregarded in favour of something worse than that which they recommended. What was the reason for that miserable piece of economy—the reduction of the salary from £1,200 to £1,000 a-year? Was it from a lingering suspicion on the part of the Prime Minister that it was not right to give this gentleman, who had been placed in the office over the heads of others, the full salary, or with the idea that the country would be conciliated by this paltry saving? But what the country required was to have efficient men, and to pay them good salaries; and in the present case he maintained that the appointment was ridiculous, as the Government ought certainly to have chosen some one who was well acquainted with the minutiœ of the Department, and was able to control the expenditure on pens and blotting-paper. Would any person connected with commercial affairs appoint a man at the head of a great busi-

  1343
  ness dealing with £600,000 or £700,000 per annum without any practical experience of the business? And the business of the Stationery Office was almost all of a technical nature. This and the other appointments that he had alluded to showed that public efficiency was not the only thing considered. He had no doubt that so long as his hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) was Secretary to the Treasury, the Department would be well looked after; but he might be succeeded by some one who had not so much practical knowledge, and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was afraid that it would then be discovered what a mistake it was to place a junior clerk in the War Office at the head of the Stationery Office.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYfelt that he should be guilty of undue reticence if he did not say a few words on this subject. He did not know of the vacancy until he heard of the appointment of Mr. Pigott; but it was only due to that gentleman to say, although no discredit had been cast on him by any speaker, that he had been undervalued. Mr. Pigott was a man of great capacity, and although only a junior clerk in the War Office, he had duties to perform which brought to him almost every kind of knowledge. He acted as private Secretary to Lord Pembroke while he was at the War Office. He was also Secretary of the Promotion and Retirement Commission; and the manner in which he carried out the difficult business which came before him showed him well qualified for any appointment that might be bestowed upon him. He (Mr. Hardy) always understood that this was one of what they called the great Staff appointments of the Public Service not necessarily to be filled up by the elevation of those from the lower ranks in the office. When a member of any Department of the State had displayed great efficiency, he naturally looked forward to promotion in any other office which he might be competent to fill; and he ventured to say the Prime Minister had had opportunities of knowing the qualifications of Mr. Pigott, and had watched his career in a manner which others might not have done. It was said Mr. Pigott did not know the details of the Stationery Office. He (Mr. Hardy) spoke as filling an office in which he had been placed over the heads of every department in the War Office; yet he had entered it
  1344
  with as little practical acquaintance with the duties of the office as any could well be; and he was called upon to discharge duties involving not only great principles, but many details. The real question, however, was this—a man when placed in a position of this kind might gain his knowledge from those about him, and if he was capable of turning his abilities to account would soon be able to utilize the information he gained; and he believed that Mr. Pigott, coming with great capacity and a fresh mind, would be found capable of dealing both with principles and details in the new position in which he had been placed. Surely this was a better principle than that of keeping a man in one constant narrow groove out of which he could not step without losing his balance. He believed Mr. Pigott would vindicate the choice which the Prime Minister had made, and show that in making the appointment he had only done his duty to the public.
  MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, he had listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the utmost astonishment and regret. It was only requisite to look at the faces of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to perceive the painful position in which they felt themselves placed. They must not blink the charge; it was a charge of jobbery in one of the great public Department—a most serious and grave charge made against the head of the Government for disregarding the high trust placed in him in appointing a most important salaried officer, and really no answer had been made to it. He entirely declined to be led away by the arguments of the Secretary of State for War, as they in no way applied to the point at issue; and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was altogether fallacious and misleading. The office required a knowledge of details and technicalities with which Mr. Pigott was admitted to be altogether unacquainted. A Select Committee had investigated the subject, and reported on the necessity of practical qualifications for the Department. It had made recommendations which had been disregarded. The Report of the Committee had been set at defiance; and what was the defence? Absolutely nothing. It was worse than nothing—it amounted to a confession of the whole thing. There was barely an attempt to

  1345
  justify it. The challenge had been made and the House must vindicate itself. Were they to submit silently to these jobs? What right had the Government to disregard not only the recommendations of a Committee, but every rule of plain common sense and honesty, by placing a man in a position who confessedly did not possess the requisite qualifications for it? The Government were in this way demoralizing the public offices. They were utterly destroying the esprit de corps in the public Establishments by drafting a young man into an office through influence, and placing him over the heads of men who had stood the test of competitive examinations, and were devoting themselves to the thorough knowledge and efficient discharge of their duties in the hope of promotion in the Department. He must refuse to follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hardy) into a discussion of the personal qualifications of this gentleman—his character was stated to be of the highest kind, and his qualifications might be equally high. The charge was one of an improper exercise of patronage by the Government, in utter disregard of the recommendations of a Select Committee. Was this, or was it not, a type or specimen of other appointments which had been complained of, but which they had no proper opportunity of bringing before the House? He hoped the House of Commons would not ratify, but would utterly condemn the appointment, which was a gross job, and as to which, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), he must say he thought there was no defence.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURalso objected to the personal question of Mr. Pigott's qualifications being introduced into the discussion. As regarded them, he could, from having served in the War Office, bear witness; but, in his opinion, that circumstance did not warrant his appointment in the face of the recommendation of the Committee. As a Member of it, he felt certain that if the Members could be re-assembled they would by a large majority declare that this appointment had not been filled up in conformity with their Report and opinion. The head of this Stationery Department, under Mr. Greg, was a public servant of long experience and great intelligence; yet he had been passed
  1346
  over in favour of a younger man taken from another Department, who knew nothing whatever of the duties. It could not be expected that men who had qualified themselves to rise in a Department by the hope of promotion would be otherwise than discouraged by such treatment.
  MR. BATESsaid, that he, as another Member of the Committee, could not agree in what had just been said, and was by no means sure that the Prime Minister had not exercised a very wise discretion. He remembered that the Committee were all dissatisfied with the manner in which the Department had been conducted, and the question was whether it might not be the best thing to bring new blood into it. If the case had been his own, he, as a business man, would have followed the same course. The gentleman appointed might not at the present moment be thoroughly practical, but they should not forget that every man must have a beginning—even the hon. Member for Hackney must have had a beginning—and therefore he (Mr. Bates) could not support the Motion of the hon. Member.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Bates) were to follow his deduction to its natural conclusion, when he had to find any fault with one of his captains for the command of his steam-ships, that captain would be superseded and some one would be brought in from the outside who knew nothing about seamanship. [Mr. BATES: I have no steamships.] The same remark would apply equally to sailing vessels. The Department to which they were referring was a great merchant department, with a purchase of £600,000 a-year, and he appealed to any merchant whether he ever knew an instance of a man taken from a department without any knowledge of the particular technical branch, and put at the head of a merchant department of £600,000, or even £60,000 a-year. If merchants were so to conduct business they would conduct themselves into the Bankruptcy Court in a short time. The question, they were told, had been left in the hands of the Treasury. But where was the Secretary to the Treasury'? If he had been in his place, he (Mr. Mundella) should have asked him whether he could not have found a man practically conversant with

  1347
  the duties, and whether he had been consulted by the Prime Minister in regard to the appointment? The fact was—there was no use in mincing words about it—his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Watkin Williams) had characterized this appointment in its true words, and he (Mr. Mundella) agreed that it was a gross job. They had had a succession of them. It was but two years ago he had to denounce the appointment of a gentleman in his 77th year to the head of the Civil Service, and what happened at the time? Why, a gentleman, only 50, in the prime of life, was placed on full pension for life, so as to make room for someone else. It was through such jobbery as this the mistake as to green coffee and the other disgraceful errors of the Crimean War occurred—the attempt to put a square peg into a round hole—and it was time it was put an end to. He must again refer to the language of the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Bates), which, as a business man, he (Mr. Mundella) should have been ashamed to use, and would ask him if he had known cases in which men taken from one branch of business had proved themselves thoroughly efficient in the new?
  MR. BATESsaid, that the hon. Member had just asked if he (Mr. Bates) had ever known a man taken from one situation and put into another with success? He would say, yes.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he had listened to this debate with great attention and very great pain. He had come down to that House perfectly unprejudiced and anxious to vote for the Government. He would not go so far as to say it had been a job, but he could not help feeling that the public interests had not been well consulted by this appointment. It did not appear that this gentleman had shown any qualifications for this appointment which had justified the Government in putting him over the heads of those who were well qualified. He did not think the House ought to sanction such an appointment, and he should feel it to be his duty to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 156: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 233.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Resolved, That, having regard to the recommendations made in 1874 by the Select Committee on Public Departments (Purchases, &c.), this House is of opinion that the recent appointment of Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is calculated to diminish the usefulness and influence of Select Committees of this House, and to discourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

  SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT—PROVINCIAL SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL MUSEUMS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, who had a Motion on the Paper on going into Committee of Supply, on Civil Service Estimates, Class IV., to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the expenditure for the promotion of Science and Art should not be exclusively confined to institutions in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin,"
  said, that as by the Rules of the House he could not then move it, he should call the attention of the House to the subject. The Motion was almost similar in terms to one which had for some time been on the Paper of the House in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac). He (Mr. Chamberlain) offered to second the Motion; but when the time arrived, the hon. Gentleman withdrew the Motion without communicating with him; but the matter was really of too much importance to be treated in this fast-and-loose manner. The constituency which he represented (Birmingham) was very much interested in this question, and many corporations were also interested; and he ventured, therefore, to think that he should be justified in stating their case, and asking for it the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In the Civil Service Estimates for the present year there was proposed to be taken for institutions in the metropolis, including Museums and the Parks, a sum of nearly £400,000, and that was without taking into account the amount of the grant for South Kensington, which was expended in the

  1349
  country in furtherance of Schools of Science. There was a further sum of £50,000 taken for Edinburgh and Dublin. Towards those grants the inhabitants of Birmingham had to pay twice over. He had calculated that the town of Birmingham had to contribute nearly £4,000 towards them, and in addition to that they had to find a sum of nearly £8,000 per annum towards their own free libraries and local parks. He did not raise this question in any spirit of provincial jealously, for he was prepared to admit the exceptional position of the metropolis. It might be said with truth that a national collection should be placed in the metropolis at the expense of the nation; but that argument did not apply to the expenditure on the public parks, and still less to that which the Bethnal Green Museum involved. He did not complain of such expenditure. It produced most admirable results, adding as it did to the pleasure and happiness of great masses of the people, and tending to elevate and refine their minds. It was, too, in some sort, a commercial investment, as it was calculated to enable artizans the better to compete with those of other nations. His complaint was, that they did not carry this principle far enough, for these institutions were centres of instruction; and if they did good, it became important that they should be a little more liberal in cases where it could be fairly shown that greater good could be done for less money. If those institutions were brought home to the people there was hardly any limit to the extent to which they would be appreciated. He was very anxious to see established in our great centres of industry a Museum of Art and Manufacture appropriate to each district, and those would be seen by the people who would benefit by them. The way in which these institutions were appreciated in the Provinces was shown by the fact that the number of visitors annually to the Birmingham Museum was about 300,000; that, too, in a place of 370,000 inhabitants. That number of visitors was much greater proportionately than was to be found at any of the metropolitan institutions; and results equally extraordinary could be stated in connection with Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, and other provincial towns where such institutions existed. At the present time, the Government
  1350
  were doing either too much, or too little in this matter. Either the grants made to London should be confined to purely reference collections, or, what he would infinitely prefer, the Government should give a much larger sum, supplementing the grants to London by moderate grants to the Provinces. He did not suggest what would involve any very large demand on the Treasury, and he trusted the Government would give the subject due consideration. A comparatively small sum would be sufficient for the purpose, if, as he supposed would be the case, the Treasury were to make a rule that such contributions should be made only to centres of large districts and important industries, and in proportion to contributions from local sources. It was true that provincial communities were at present legally able to tax themselves to the extent of 1d. in the pound for the purpose of establishing museums and libraries; but in Birmingham all this money went to the Free Library, and they had therefore no means of establishing an industrial museum.
  MR. MORLEYsaid, he felt great pleasure in supporting the suggestion of his hon. Friend. In Nottingham the people were making great efforts to improve themselves in objects of science and art; and he hoped the Government would respond in the right spirit to the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham. He entirely concurred in the suggestion that the grants should be made in proportion to local contributions, and considered that the acceptance of the proposal would be quite in accordance with the objects of the Education Department. The grants would be most properly made where there existed a disposition on the part of the people, in towns like Nottingham and Bristol, to take an interest in collections bearing upon the particular trades of the locality, and to study higher subjects than were ordinarily cultivated in provincial towns.
  MR. A. MARTHURalso supported the recommendations of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Our public expenditure in aid of science and art was, to say the least, by no means excessive, and, although large sums were spent on museums in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin, yet he thought it might with advantage be increased, especially in the way of grants to large centres of industry where such institutions had al-

  1351
  ready been established by local effort. We were in many respects far behind other nations in regard to the encouragement given to science and art, and it must be admitted that the attention we had been bestowing on technical education had not been bestowed a moment too soon, considering the competition of other countries which we had to sustain. The people of Leicester were, like his hon. Friend's (Mr Morley's) constituents, making great efforts to improve themselves in objects of science and art; and they felt that London, in justice to other large cities and towns in England, should not have the largest amount of money voted to it in aid of those objects. He therefore trusted the Government would see their way to giving the question their favourable consideration.
  Ms. ANDERSONsaid, that, on behalf of the large city he represented, he also desired to support the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He believed that without any expenditure of actual money a great deal more might be done for the Provinces than was now done. As an instance of that they were told the other day by the Government that a valuable picture by David Roberts had been refused by the Commissioners of the National Gallery, because they already had pictures by Roberts in that Gallery. But why should the picture have been refused on that account? Surely it might have been taken, and sent to some provincial town. He recommended that when the Commissioners of the National Gallery had various pictures by the same artist, they should send some of them down, if not permanently, at all events temporarily, to towns in the country, where at least they would be very much appreciated.
  VISCOUNT SANDONsaid that, while in common with everyone else, he should be glad to see the establishment of museums and galleries in the great centres of population and industry, yet the House must feel that the question raised was a very large one. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Isaac) withdrew his Motion on the subject, because he thought that, from its importance, it could not be properly considered at this period of the Session, and he expressed his intention of bringing it forward on the most convenient occasion next Ses-
  1352
  sion. He could assure the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain) that the Government did not undervalue the subject at all; but the House must see that it was not one which could be conveniently pressed on the Government at the present time. He must beg, therefore, that it would not be so pressed, especially as it involved a very great financial question. The hon. Member for Birmingham had expressed his regret that some of the admirable works at the British Museum were not able to be circulated. This reminded him of the great advantage which the country derived from the South Kensington Museum, which was now, in fact, a gigantic circulating museum. Some 18 years ago a series of specimens only were sent out; but since then almost all the principal objects in the Museum, except those of great rarity or delicacy, were sent on their travels at different times through the Provinces. It was said that much was not done for the Provinces; but the fact was, that out of the whole amount of £130,000 spent yearly for Science and Art schools only about £10,000 was spent really on London objects—that was to say, about £120,000 was really spent on provincial objects.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he excluded that from any calculation. There still remained about £400,000 a-year which was spent on the London institutions.
  VISCOUNT SANDONpointed out that it was rather difficult when different Votes were put together by the hon. Member—some coming within his own province and others being under the control of the Treasury only, and in no way under the Privy Council Office—to say exactly what proportion of these votes were made for London only, and how far the Provinces shared in them. Still, the fact remained that a large proportion of the money was spent on provincial objects. Hon. Members were apt to forget what an immense benefit the Provinces derived from the Science and Art Vote in the way of aid to Science schools, of which there were 1,100 throughout the country; Art-training schools with their 17,000 students, public elementary schools, and for scholarships and other objects. The grants for the Museum at South Kensington included various items which were for local museums, and the loans

  1353
  to these museums and exhibitions were very large, there having been some 3,000 loans of objects and 5,200 paintings and drawings during last year to museums and exhibitions in the country. A great deal, therefore, was already done in the direction indicated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, it being very much the same line as the authorities of South Kensington Museum, acting under the Privy Council, were anxious to follow. "Whether it would be possible to go further in another year he (Viscount Sandon) was not in a position to say at that moment. The present was a time when the resources of the country were rather straitened, and a strict economy was therefore very properly exercised by those who controlled the public expenses, so that the hands of Ministers in charge of the various Departments were much tied as to incurring fresh expenses. The Government, however, would not overlook the question. It would receive careful consideration, and when it came on for discussion next year, as proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, he hoped that the Government would be able to give an opinion one way or another.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that the noble Lord was quite justified in adopting that line of argument with regard to the South Kensington authorities; but he wished to point out that what the hon. Member for Birmingham wished to argue was that there were large museums and collections in London which, while they were there, were of little use to the Provinces. The British Museum, for instance, and the National Gallery, were practically of no use except to London, yet every one knew that they contained many duplicates which would be most valuable to the Provinces, and the offer of some important pictures was sometimes declined on behalf of the National Gallery. He attributed the great advantages of the South Kensington Museum to the fact of its being under the management of the Minister for Education, and advocated the placing of the British Museum and the National Gallery under the same authority. In France the Minister of Education was responsible for all the museums, and constantly sent collections into the Provinces; but in England, the management of the Galleries was, so to say, dislocated, and not under
  1354
  one authority or one Minister; and such a person might, without any additional expenditure, be able to do a great deal for the cause of artistic education.

LAW AND JUSTICE—DETENTION IN PRISON BEFORE TRIAL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to call the attention of the Government to a matter which had often been mentioned before, but which he thought could not be mentioned too often, until some remedy could be found for the existing evil. He referred to the lengthened periods during which persons were kept in prison before trial. The principle near London was, that there should be a gaol delivery every month; but he wished the House to consider the situation of persons in the rural districts. According to the last Return, 12,000 persons were in prison, and of these 7,000 had been there for more than a month, and were consequently worse off than if they had been within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court. More than 3,000 had been in gaol for two months; 826 prisoners had remained untried for more than three months, and 86 for more than six months. That was a scandalous state of things, explainable, perhaps, but not the less disgraceful, and it was most serious as it affected those prisoners themselves. He found by the Returns that many prisoners were detained for a long time in prison in Essex. Bristol, Norwich, and other places before being brought to trial. In Birmingham there were 16 persons kept in gaol four months before being brought to trial; in Northampton there were 13 prisoners who were more than four months in gaol before being brought to trial; and in Kent, 13 more than four months. In Lancashire there were 100 prisoners who were kept in gaol more than four months before being brought to trial. He was well aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had brought in a Bill last year to remedy the evil, but it would not apply to such cases as he (Sir William Harcourt) was now calling attention to, as it only affected the Winter Assizes. He took the numbers from Returns presented this Session, and the cause of these numerous detentions was not far to seek.

  1355
  They were due to the fact that from July to December not one Judge could he found to deliver a gaol, and prisoners committed in July could not be tried till December. It was not necessary to expatiate on the consequences of so discreditable a state of things. Let the House imagine the case of a man committed to prison in July or August, and kept in prison from his family until December before being brought to trial; and let them also reflect that the man might be innocent. They could not find a Judge to try him. This ought not to be tolerated by the House or the country. The Home Secretary might say that in all these cases, prisoners might be brought up to London for trial; but he (Sir William Harcourt) doubted it. Another defect in their judicial system was, that when the Assizes happened to be fixed at the time the quarter sessions were to be held, the quarter sessions were put off until the Assizes were over, and prisoners who stood for trial at the quarter sessions were consequently detained in gaol longer than they ought to be. This had happened in the county of Lancaster, where the quarter sessions were fixed for a particular day in the hundred of Salford. The Judges, anticipating the ordinary time of the Assizes by one week, appointed for the Assizes the day on which the sessions were to be held. The consequence was, that the sessions could not take place until after the Assizes were over. The sessions were postponed for a month, and the Judges could not try the prisoners. The result was, that the trial of 100 persons had to be put off for a month. That, however, was simply a case of perverse mismanagement. It was the fashion to denounce the Long Vacation, but, after all, what would be thought of a Government office in which work was suspended for so long? The question was, whether there could not be some arrangement by which the administration of justice should go on continuously like the business in other Departments. He knew he should meet with opposition from lawyers who, as well as Judges, liked long vacations. But when prisoners, some of whom might be innocent, were locked up for so many months without a chance of being brought to trial, the Long Vacation became an amusement which was cruel. He felt confident that some of
  1356
  the Judges, to prevent such treatment, might remedy the evil by holding extra Assizes, instead of taking their usual holidays. But even that fell short of what was needed. Much might he done by a better organization of the labour of the Judges and their distribution for the purposes of these extra Assizes, for, at present, much of their power was frittered away all over the country under the system in force. Two eminent persons were sent down to a little country town to try two or three prisoners and a month was devoted to the circuit, during which the Judges did not sit half the time. He moved last year for a Return which though very imperfect and difficult to understand still gave some facts which showed the waste of judicial power. In 1876, for instance, two Judges were sent down to try cases in Hertfordshire, Essex, Kent, and Sussex, and 19 days were appropriated to the purpose. During these 19 days one of the Judges sat nine days and the other 10. Nothing was more obvious than that if one Judge had been sent down he would have done all the business. Time was wasted by this want of forethought and care in the distribution of our judicial power. The Returns for which he had moved, and which were now on the Table, showed many instances of this fact, and pointed immediately to the necessity for a better distribution of that power under some central authority, either the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor, who should have the power of fixing when and where the Judges should hold Assizes to effect a speedy gaol delivery all over the country. Such a central authority would effect the object, remove a gross public scandal, and prevent gross injustice. If instead of fixing weeks beforehand on two Judges to go hero and two Judges to go there, we kept a reserve of judicial power in London and sent down Judges as they were wanted, the number of Judges we had now would be sufficient, and we should not hear the complaints that were heard at present.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, said, that this subject had already been discussed at some length at an earlier period of the Session, when he was obliged to refuse anything like an assent to the proposal which was made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, for the reason

  1357
  that, although discussed in Committee, when the Report was brought up, a clause was proposed to the effect that every prisoner who had been three months in prison without trial should be released, unless some application to the contrary should be made to a Judge in the matter showing that there were reasons for a longer detention. Without dissenting from the principles of the clause he was bound to resist it, because there was no machinery by which it could be carried out. He quite agreed that three months was quite long enough for any prisoner to remain in prison untried. That was the case in all cases to be tried at the quarter sessions, and some scheme should be invented by which it would be extended to prisoners to be tried at Assizes. When the clause was introduced, the discussion rather took the shape of an attack against the Government; but he was glad to say there had been nothing of that kind now. This was no new matter, and the first step had been taken to remedy the grievance; because, until this year, a person might have committed an offence early in July and not be tried till the following March. By the Act passed last year we had practically criminal Assizes three times a-year, instead of twice as formerly, and in December last there was not a single prisoner waiting for trial in any gaol in England. The Act, therefore, had been so far successful, and the figures which had been presented to the House were now inapplicable. He did not see why by some machinery they should not have gaol deliveries four times instead of three in the year. Whether that might be done by applying the Winter Assizes Act he was not prepared at once to say. All he would say at present was, that he had been for some time in communication with his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on the subject, and the matter had also been laid before the Chief Justice for consultation among the Judges, and he thought a scheme might be devised by which untried prisoners might be drawn together in separate centres and tried in different counties. This important matter, he repeated, had been under the consideration of the Home Office for some time, and he should be happy to do everything in his power to remedy the inconvenience that was now complained of. In regard to
  1358
  the Long Vacation, it was fixed by Act of Parliament to commence on the 10th of August, and that was the reason why the Assizes had been held earlier this year than in previous years; but he would take care that next year there should be no chance of inconvenience arising again from the Assizes clashing with the quarter sessions. Having said so much as to the trial of prisoners, ho would not go into the larger question of the apportioning of the labours of Judges, and having stated his views frankly, he hoped they might now be allowed to go into Committee of Supply, as it could be of little use in further discussing a subject which was under consideration in so many quarters.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOThad only one word to say. He was very glad to hear that the inconvenience of last year was not to recur, but instead of leaving the decision to the Judges, it would be left either to the Home Secretary, or the Lord Chancellor.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself into the Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (1.) £9,192, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commissioner's Office.
  MR. WHITWELLexpressed the opinion that it would have been better to have constituted this Office an entirely new establishment, instead of imposing double duties upon officers of the Admiralty Registry Office, who already had adequate duties to discharge.
  MR. BRISTOWEwished to know, what were the regulations that had been made by the Home Office with regard to the salaries and travelling expenses of the nautical assessors, for which a total sum of £6,000 was put down in the Estimates?
  MR. DODSONasked, whether it was to be inferred from one item in the Vote that fees were paid to unpaid justices, as well as to stipendiary magistrates?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that the Supplementary Vote, respecting which a Question had been asked a few days ago,

  1359
  was between £1,700 and £1,800. With reference to the payments to magistrates, justices received no fees; but stipendiary magistrates, whose business was, in some cases, greatly increased by wreck inquiries, were paid. With regard to the assessors, it had been decided to transfer their appointment to the Home Office, and practically there had been no change in their remuneration. As regarded the office of Wreck Commissioner, the gentleman who held that office was second to no man in the qualifications necessary for the discharge of the duties attendant upon it. The arrangements so far were tentative, it being desired to ascertain what was the amount of work and where it would have to be performed.
  MR. NORWOODinquired where the Court of the Commissioner of Wrecks would be finally located?
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was not yet finally decided where the Commissioner was to sit, whether at Westminster or elsewhere; but several places had been tried, and that found most convenient would ultimately be decided upon.
  Vote agreed to.
  (2.) £36,340, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court.
  (3.) £316,643, to complete the sum for the County Courts.
  (4.) £3,918, to complete the sum for the Land Registry Office.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, who was the Chief Registrar, as he understood the chief portion of the work was done by the assistant Registrar?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was unable to give the name of the Chief Registrar, but the scale of fees payable in the Office had recently been increased, on the recommendation of the Legal Departments Commission.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, the Office had been a failure from its institution by Lord Westbury, in 1861 or 1862. It was the laughing stock of the legal Profession, and it was very seldom resorted to for the purpose for which it was established. The amount received for fees was only £776, as against £5,418, the total amount expended on the Office. That had been going on for 15 years at a cost to the nation of
  1360
  £150,000. Surely something ought to be done to make it self-supporting. It should either be made useful, or it should be abolished.
  MR. ANDERSONthought the system of registering titles might be made profitable if properly managed. In Scotland the system was universal, and it produced a profit to the revenue of £10,000 a-year.
  MR. BUTTsaid, if there was to be a Registrar of titles he ought to be well paid.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the Act passed by Lord Westbury for registering titles had undoubtedly been a failure, as people would not take advantage of it. When the Act was passed it was expected that persons would take advantage of it to register their titles, as by doing so it would give them an indefeasible right which could not hereafter be disputed. Two years ago an amending Act had been passed under which some titles had been registered, but certainly not as many as might have been expected; but no doubt the advantages of such registration would be felt by the holders of property, and that the office of Registrar would hereafter be one of importance.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that nothing had been stated to justify the Committee agreeing to the Vote. He did not believe that people ever would register their titles, and he should, therefore, move that the Vote should be disallowed.
  Amendment proposed, "That the Vote be disallowed."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALpointed out that if the Committee accepted the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea, it would be practically taking upon itself the responsibility of repealing an Act which was passed after full discussion only two years ago. The whole question of the existence of the Office of Registration of Titles, and the salary to be paid to that officer, had been discussed at the time the Act passed creating the Office, and it was now too late to take exception to the existence of the Office, or of the salary to the gentleman who filled it.
  MR. RAMSAYremarked that apart from the point suggested by the hon. and learned Attorney General, the registration of titles to land was an object

  1361
  so desirable to be attained that he hoped the Vote would be agreed to. The flaw, if any, was now in the law, and not in the Department, and he could not therefore support the Amendment. He hoped that the registration of titles would be adopted as a practice before long.
  MR. GORSTpointed out that if the Committee refused the Vote, they would in reality be preventing the Government carrying out an Act of Parliament.
  MR. RYLANDScomplained that the salaries of the gentlemen of this Department had been settled without any knowledge of the amount of work they would have to do, but when once appointed they could not be got rid of.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYsaid, if there had been one thing more clamoured for than another it was for the registration of titles. Under such circumstances, when the law was passed, it was most necessary that a first-rate man should be made Registrar. A most able lawyer had been appointed, and it was no reason why, because the Act had not succeeded, he should be deprived of his salary. He supported the Vote in the belief that registration of titles would speedily become general.
  MR. DODSONobserved that at one time there was a great demand for a system of registration, and the Act was passed as an experiment. He never thought it was likely to succeed, because, unless a person really wished to sell, it was not likely he would take the trouble of registering. He could not agree to the proposition of the hon. Member for Swansea, particularly as no Notice of opposition to the Vote had been given.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would not press his Motion, but hoped the Government would take the subject into their consideration, and arrange the Office so as to make it more useful.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he believed the Act under which the Registrar of Titles was appointed was a dead letter. He should like to know how many titles had been registered?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could not, off hand, state the number of deeds already registered under the Act; but it was clear that some landowners had availed themselves of the measure, for a sum of very nearly £800 had been already received by the office in payment of registration fees. If his hon. and learned Friend had given No-
  1362
  tice of his Question he would have been prepared to give an answer to it.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he would move for a Return on the subject.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £10,745, to complete the sum for the Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, what means had been adopted to prevent frauds in regard to the accounting for fines in the police courts?
  MR. DODSONsaid, the subject came before him as Chairman of the Committee on Public Accounts, and they found that rules had been drawn up by which they hoped an efficient check had been secured.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £251,892, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEcalled attention to the different scales of gratuities paid to the police doing duty at certain public buildings in London, and suggested that a uniform scale should be established.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that representations on the subject having been made to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, a Minute had been recently drawn up under which the payments in question would be equalized in future.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £859,098, to complete the sum for Police, Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
  MR. DODSONpointed out that the Vote was increasing year by year with great leaps and bounds. This year the increase was more than £50,000. In all cases where one person provided the money and another had the spending of it, that might be expected to be the case. Nearly 300 local authorities had a claim to the spending of this Vote, and they fixed the number of men and their scale of pay, and under the arrangement made in 1874 the Government provided no less than half the expenditure. Moreover, the Government Inspectors stimulated expenditure. The subsidy had been raised in 1874

  1363
  from one-fourth of the cost of the police to one-half, but the charge on the Exchequer had more nearly trebled than doubled between 1873 and 1877. When the proposal was made by the Government in 1874, with the full approval of the House, to double the subsidy, it was distinctly regarded as only a temporary arrangement. This clearly appeared from the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. A Bill was brought in, which was to remain in operation for only one year, suspending the limit placed by the previous Act on the Government subvention. In 1875 the Home Secretary proposed to introduce a measure dealing with this question of the police in reference to subventions; but when it came to be printed it was found to be nothing more than a Bill continuing for 12 months the Suspensory Act, if he might call it so, of the preceding year. The right hon. Gentleman said, on the second reading, that he was prevented by the pressure of other business from dealing with the whole subject. Another Continuance Bill was passed in 1876. He hoped that the subject had been under the consideration of the Government; but if not, he hoped it would receive their earliest attention, as under the present temporary arrangement it was obvious that we must expect a very large annual increase in the Vote. He agreed with the Home Secretary that the whole subject of the police ought to be considered. The police force for the counties and boroughs in England and Scotland numbered 21,000 men, sub-divided into nearly 300 different armies, varying very considerably in numbers from one man upwards. Such a system did not tend to the efficiency of the police force. He did not want the right hon. Gentleman to adopt a system of centralization, and to convert the police forces of the country into a single army under his own control and patronage; but still he thought the Government might consider whether they could not advantageously amalgamate some of the small forces with the larger ones. He should like to know the course the Home Secretary intended to pursue this year with regard to the subvention, whether it was to be put on a more permanent footing, or whether they were to have another Suspensory Bill on the subject?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONadmitted that the increases had been growing rapidly since the augmented Grant had been made by the Treasury to the police forces of the country; but although the increase in the present year amounted to £52,000, this was a decided diminution on the last year's Vote, which amounted to £74,000, and which was owing to the attempts made by his right hon. Friend to bring about something like a system. Until the passing of the Treasury Minute of August, 1876, the Home Secretary had no control over the numbers or the pay of the police forces in boroughs; but since then, in order to deal more satisfactorily with cases of increase, all the localities had been asked by circular to send in their estimates at a given time, so that they might be considered together. Any increase in the number of men and the pay was only sanctioned where it was shown to the entire satisfaction of the Home Secretary that both were absolutely necessary. As to the Bill regulating the subvention being simply an annual Bill, he agreed that the subject was one which required attention. There were a good many subjects, however—superannuation being one of them—which would have to be carefully considered before an alteration of the existing system could be made. With regard to the amalgamation of the small boroughs with the counties, every facility was at present given for it. He quite agreed that such amalgamation conduced to efficiency. Many small boroughs, which preferred to retain their independence, were not in receipt of the Government Grant. Now that the Report of the Select Committee on superannuation had been presented, one obstacle to dealing with the whole subject had been removed.
  MR. WHITWELLhoped that the Home Office would give great and serious consideration to this enormous Vote, as the increase was due to the additional wages given to the police. He did not see why the increase in the number of the police should be arranged according to a hard-and-fast line, and that small country towns should be expected to maintain as large a force in proportion as mercantile towns. In that way they were induced, against their own convictions, to raise the strength in order to get the Government Grant.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) had disavowed centralization, though he appeared to have recommended it. If the Government attempted to take the police into their hands, as they had the prisons, they would find a very stout opposition from behind, if not from the front Opposition benches.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, so far as he had been able to calculate from the Returns prepared by the Home Secretary and from the Civil Service Estimates, the number of police throughout the Kingdom was upwards of 40,000, and the annual cost chargeable alone to the Exchequer at least £4,000,000. It was, however, impossible for any private Member of Parliament to make out, from the existing confusion in the Police Returns of the Kingdom, either the numbers, the grades, the pay, or the charge for the various forces of this kind. He had on several occasions suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State the importance of having a complete Return of all the Police and Constabulary in the United Kingdom, together with the grades, the pay, and various other charges, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to furnish a still more exact account than that now stated of the police force of the whole country.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexpressed his willingness to do what he could to give the House the information desired by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down. With regard to the increase of the police, when the police system was first started it was left to the different jurisdictions voluntarily to provide the requisite number of police. Many of them, however, did not readily comply with the necessary requirements of their districts, and eventually the Act was made compulsory. Although a great number of local justices did their duty in providing the proper number of police according to the Act, there was considerable difficulty in pressing upon the various localities to raise the strength up to the standard which, in the opinion of the Home Office, was requisite for the particular districts concerned. But no hard-and-fast line was ever drawn, either by himself or by any of his Predecessors. The number of police depended upon
  1366
  the nature of the district, and the kind of population in it. Sir George Grey, he believed, thought one policeman to a thousand of the population might be considered as a limit; but he did not lay down any fixed rule on the subject. The pressure thus put upon localities by the Home Office under the Act accounted for the first increase that took place in the number of police. Two special safeguards were in operation. One was, that in order to obtain the Treasury subvention, the locality must have a certificate from the Home Secretary that the number of men in respect of whom the contribution was required was not in excess of the number needed for the maintenance of the peace of the district, and also that the scale of pay and the cost of clothing were reasonable and proper. In that way the efficiency of the police force was secured, without interfering with the freedom of the locality in governing the police. He thought that every possible facility should be given to local jurisdictions to amalgamate the forces of their districts, but he should be sorry to see anything like centralization established in a matter of this kind.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was glad to hear the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman as to centralization.
  Dr. LUSHsaid, the regulation of the police was, on the whole, conducted with economy by the municipal authorities, and he did not think the Government subvention had increased local expenditure.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £340,085, to complete the sum for Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies.
  MR. RYLANDSpointed out that the difference in expenditure on the various convict prisons was enormous, and it was very much higher than it ought to be. In the present Vote there was an estimate for new buildings and alterations of £22,720, £10,000 of which was to be expended at Millbank and Wormwood Scrubs. It seemed to him that in Government establishments or buildings, it was customary, as soon as a building was completed, for some one to suggest improvements which occasioned considerable outlay.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied, that the estimate in the present Vote for new buildings was absolutely essential,

  1367
  as the hon. Gentleman would have seen if he had taken the trouble to go to Millbank.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £74,187, to complete the sum for County Prisons, &c.
  (10.) £174,263, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools.
  MR. RUSSELL GURNEYcalled attention to the case of young children under six years of age who did not under the present regulations receive the benefits of those industrial schools. He had a letter from a gentleman who was one of the highest authorities on that subject, and who spoke of a school under his charge in which there was not a child under six. He urged that if a small payment were made for such children a great number of them would be saved from a life of vice. He would, therefore, appeal to the Home Secretary whether there could not be some change made in the existing regulations, so as to prevent the mischief arising from leaving those young children to fall into evil ways, instead of sending them at a small expense to institutions where they would be brought up well and industriously.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSstated that the matter to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred was the subject of a correspondence which was still going on between the Treasury and the Home Office. He could not say more than that on the question at the present moment.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) £21,344, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. RYLANDS, who had given Notice that he would move the reduction of the Vote, said, that after the discussion which had occurred last Monday, when the Home Secretary held out an assurance that an investigation would be made into that establishment, he did not think it necessary on the present occasion to press for a reduction of that expenditure.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had drawn the attention of the Committee more than once to the great expenditure incurred at Broadmoor Asylum, because (he thought it was not desirable that they
  1368
  should make criminals of any class the pets of the State. The great expenditure at Broadmoor was, he believed, caused in some degree by the fact that a number of its inmates were not insane, but worked mischief when they had the opportunity. He should regret if it were supposed that in any notice he had taken of that institution and of the extravagant expenditure, as he regarded it, incurred for it, there was any censure upon the Council of Supervision. He acknowledged that the State was under obligations to those gentlemen for doing what they conceived to be their duty under the circumstances; but he thought, with all deference to them, that they took a mistaken view of their duty by the expenditure of so much of the public money on a very worthless part of the community.
  MR. WALTER, as one of the Council of Supervision, whose acquittal by the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) he was glad to hear, wished to say a few words with regard to the remarks which that hon. Gentleman had made. The hon. Member had condemned the expenditure of so much money on what he called a most worthless part of the community. Now, he would remind the hon. Member that Broadmoor was in no sense a prison. When it was first founded, it was expressly stated by the Lunacy Commissioners, that it was intended to be as much of a hospital and as little of a prison as possible; and as a matter of fact convict prisoners—that was to say, prisoners who were sent from convict prisons to Broadmoor in consequence of having become insane—had ceased to be sent there. Broadmoor was essentially a place for the reception of persons who, by the very hypothesis, were not criminal, but who had committed in a state of insanity, acts which would otherwise have been criminal. Therefore the policy of the State had been to treat those persons not as criminals, but as patients; and, unless that distinction was kept in view, they would argue that question on wrong premisses. He was glad that the Home Secretary had lately paid a visit to Broadmoor, because he felt sure that, unless people had seen the place, they could not form any idea of the expense necessary for its maintenance. It included an extensive acreage, with enormous buildings, the cost of maintaining which was extremely

  1369
  heavy. Then, again, the Staff of attendance employed there was necessarily large, entailing a cost of 45 per cent of the total expenditure. The attendance at Broadmoor were 20 per cent of the inmates; whereas, in ordinary county asylums, he believed the attendance were about 10 per cent. That arose from the immense proportion of male patients at Broadmoor. In pauper lunatic asylums the number of male patients was about the same as the number of female. The present estimate was considerably less than that of last year as that was less than that of the previous year. There had been a diminution since 1872 of about £6 a-head in the cost of the patients. An objection had been made to the dietary of the prisoners. Now, it was well-known to medical men that the recovery of these unfortunate people greatly depended upon good living. Broadmoor was one of the healthiest localities in which any class of patients could be placed. The mortality was only 2¼ per cent. There was no institution of that class in the Kingdom which could show anything like so small a mortality among the patients; in fact, it seemed to be a place to which persons who wished to live long should be sent. Would the Committee allow him to read a few figures to show the ratio of mortality and the cost of maintenance in four different asylums? In the City of London Asylum the dietary cost 6s. 11 d. per head weekly, and the mortality was 4·89 per cent; in the lunatic asylum in the county of Bucks the dietary was 6s. 5¾d. per head weekly, and the mortality was 8·28 per cent; in Sussex Asylum the dietary was still lower—namely, 4s. 10⅝d. per head weekly, and the mortality 13·94 per cent; in Wilts, where the dietary was lowest—namely, 4s. 7¾d. per head weekly, the mortality rose to 16·96 per cent. Now, in Broadmoor, the dietary was about 5s. 9d. per head weekly, and the mortality about 2¼ per cent. That showed the importance of good dietary, if we cared for the health of these people. He could not give the hon. Member for Falkirk much hope of further reduction at Broadmoor. We could get rid of Broadmoor. We could introduce a totally new system for criminal lunatics But as long as this establishment was at Broadmoor he did not believe it would be possible materially to reduce the ex-
  1370
  penditure. If we sold Broadmoor, with the view of erecting an asylum elsewhere, we should have to do so at a great sacrifice, and he believed we should dearly purchase the change. It was a costly building in the first instance. It cost a great deal to put it into a decent state of repair, and considerably more to keep it in a complete state of repair. He should advise the Home Secretary to consider very well before he consented to any change of the asylum.
  MR. FLOYERagreed with very much that his hon. Friend (Mr. Walter) had said as to Broadmoor. But as to the mortality at Broadmoor, according to the last Return to which he had access, he thought there were 20 deaths among a total of 500 patients, which would be a mortality of 4 per cent. That, however, was, no doubt, a very low mortality. He believed the average mortality in the pauper lunatic asylums in England was about 7 per cent. But he must remind his hon. Friend that the patients of Broadmoor hardly corresponded with the general class of patients in the county lunatic asylums. He agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that good diet had a great advantage. Some years ago, attention was drawn to the high expenditure at Broadmoor Asylum, and he thought there was a little point on which the expenditure at present was rather large. He knew that some of the inmates required a strong hand. But there was one class of officers the same in Broadmoor as in other asylums—he meant the class of clerks and stewards. As to the management of stores at Broadmoor, there was a steward, an assistant storekeeper, and two assistant clerks, if not another clerk. At any rate, there were four persons to keep an account of the stores. He could not imagine how all these persons could be required to do that work. Probably, the accounts were kept by double entry. Now, in an asylum with which he was acquainted there was about the same number of patients as in Broadmoor, but the account of the stores was kept by one officer, and he was quite ready to show his books to any man in England. He (Mr. Floyer) did not know that there had been an error of half-a-crown in a period of 40 years. He would recommend that the accounts at Broadmoor should be kept in a simple way as at the institution with which he was acquainted. He perceived

  1371
  by the last Report of the Commissioners that out of the 500 inmates at Broadmoor 49, or 10 per cent, were confined to bed. That was much above the average in ordinary asylums. There appeared to be an unusually large number of inmates confined to bed at one time, and he thought this was a matter that should be inquired into. It was a delusion to suppose that these lunatics could be maintained at the same cost as ordinary lunatics were in county asylums, still he thought that some reduction might be made in the cost of the institution.
  MR. WALTERexplained that the authorities at Broadmoor had to collect some £7,000 per annum from different Unions and parishes all through England, with which they were in connection, and that this work involved a very large amount of correspondence, which fully occupied the time of the clerks. The whole of the clerical work was performed at Broadmoor, and not in London, which accounted for the comparatively large sum which such work at that establishment cost.
  MR. RAMSAYthought that the inmates at this institution, whether they were regarded as criminals or patients, cost more than was necessary. The lunatics at Perth did not cost half so much for maintenance.
  Vote agreed to.
  (12.) £18,690, Miscellaneous Legal Charges.
  (13.) £51,608, to complete the sum for the Lord Advocate and Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
  (14.) £45,898, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
  MR. RAMSAYthought it was right that the attention of the Government should be directed to this Vote, and especially to that part of it which related to the salaries paid for the administration of justice in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was understood by some hon. Members of the House to have promised last year, that he would give lull consideration to the whole of the Scotch judicial system in order that economy might be secured. He (Mr. Ramsay) had already drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that they had a great many officials in Scotland. The Judges in their Sheriff Courts, who were rather
  1372
  underpaid than overpaid, were excessive in number, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had the power, if he would but exercise it, to reduce the number of these Judges. But, instead of reducing the number, they were asked some years ago to increase them. The right hon. Gentleman had sanctioned an increase in Glasgow at a very recent date, but there he (Mr. Ramsay) believed that it was needed. The Returns which were obtained of the duties performed by the different Sheriffs in Scotland must, he thought, have satisfied the right hon. Gentleman that some change was necessary, and he had hoped that before that time, he would have inaugurated something more comprehensive than anything that was provided for in the Sheriffs Courts Bill, which was now before Parliament. The subject was one of much importance to Scotland, and he could not therefore allow the Vote to pass in silence. He trusted that arrangements would be made by which, as he had said, greater economy might be secured for the future without any diminution of efficiency.
  Vote agreed to.
  (15.) £25,614, to complete the sum for the Register House Departments, Edinburgh.
  MR. M'LARENremarked that in this Vote were lumped together several subjects between which there was no necessary connection. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the Vote for the General Register of Sasines. It appeared that the Estimate for the present year was £19,142; but hon. Members would see, by a foot-note, that the fees charged in that Office for the work done last year amounted to £28,968, so that the Government, while paying nothing for the services performed, had got nearly £10,000 of profit out of the title-deeds of owners of houses and lands in Scotland. He thought that was a very objectionable state of things. Moreover, it was in violation of an Act of Parliament. But what he wished particularly to call the attention of the Committee to was that, notwithstanding this enormous profit, which he held to be illegal in a certain sense, the clerks in the Office complained that they were overworked and underpaid, and that there was a want of management on the part of the heads of the Office, A printed paper had been circu-

  1373
  lated amongst hon. Members, being copy of a Memorial sent to the Treasury, setting forth the complaints of the clerks. Hon. Members would see that the first item in this branch of the Vote was £1,000 a-year for the Keeper of the General Register of Sasines. The clerks had complained to him that this gentleman, at the head of the Office, was not there above a quarter of an hour each day; that, practically, there was no control whatever over the Office; and that the consequence was that when promotions took place, the senior clerks were not always promoted. They complained, in fact, that there was a want of knowledge in the head, owing to the want of personal presence and superintendence, and that great injustice was thus done to the clerks. They complained in the Memorial that one clerk had been absent for three years; that his salary was continued to be paid as if he was an active man in the Office, and that the other clerks had to do all the work which he would have done had he been present, or which his successor, if appointed, would do. He wished the Secretary of the Treasury to understand that he was not going into the Department of Searches at all, which was a different department. The Lord Advocate had, he understood, that matter under his consideration, and he had no doubt that he would get it arranged in the proper way. He spoke of the clerks in the Register of Sasines Office. He was not going to move any reduction on the Vote at present; but he gave Notice that if the same state of things continued for another year, and he was spared to be there, he should move a great reduction in the salary of the head of the Department, who was now paid £1,000 a-year. That the public should pay this salary for attendance of not more than a quarter of an hour a-day was a most reprehensible thing in a public Department. That he was a man of great ability, he admitted; but if all the ability of Edinburgh was centred in him it would still be indefensible that he should not give sufficient time for the proper superintendence of an office where more than 100 clerks were employed. He thought it was the duty of the Government to see that justice was done to the clerks, and that the Office was put upon a more satisfactory footing.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that the matter to which his hon.
  1374
  Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had called attention, was a grievance of very long standing. They, in Scotland, had set a very excellent example of establishing and maintaining a free registry of land; but he thought it was a hard thing that their position in that respect should be made the means of levying, in some sense, a special tax upon Scotland, inasmuch as the fees taken were much larger than the expenses incurred. He hoped that any surplus of receipts would be devoted to increasing the efficiency of the Department, and that indexes would be brought up to date, so that one might be able to lay his hands upon all the burdens which attached to any particular property in any part of Scotland.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had referred to a considerable balance which appeared upon the account as earned by these particular fees; but he must point out to him that the increase had been rapid within the last two or three years. There was a reduction of the fees charged in the Office in 1873. In 1873ߝ4 the income was £23,948; in 1874ߝ5 it was £25,409; and in 1875ߝ6 it was £28,968. There had, therefore, been a very large increase of fees suddenly; but it was not by any means certain that that increase would be maintained. He would take care that the statement which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had just made should be inquired into. It was the desire of the Government that the Office should be most efficiently maintained in every respect, and no effort would be spared to secure that result.
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) £15,671, to complete the sum for the Prisons and Judicial Statistics, Scotland.
  (17.) £63,428, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland.
  (18.) £30,379, to complete the sum for the Court of Chancery, Ireland.
  (19.) £21,126, to complete the sum for Common Law Courts, Ireland.
  (20.) £6,768, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland.
  (21.) £8,488, to complete the sum for the Landed Estates Court, Ireland.
  (22.) £8,548, to complete the sum for the Court of Probate, Ireland.
  (23.) £1,200, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.
  (24.) £13,628, to complete the sum for Registry of Deeds, Ireland.
  (25.) £2,050, to complete the sum for Registry of Judgments, Ireland.
  (26.) £97,391, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the case of "O'Byrne v. Hartington," arising out of a savage assault committed by the Metropolitan police upon peaceable citizens at a public meeting held in the Phoenix Park, Dublin, in the year 1871, called for the discussion of political grievances. The police were ordered to disperse the meeting, but the manner in which they were to disperse it was not indicated. The fact was, however, they were led by an official whose name had not transpired, and the manner in which they dispersed it was by bludgeoning the speakers and also the reporters, as well as a considerable number of the persons who came to listen to the speeches. If this attack was not directed by the noble Lord the Marquess of Hartington, he should like to know who the official was that ordered the police to make it, and whether he still held office and received pay under the Vote? If he did, he should move to reduce it by that amount.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the transaction was one which had occurred before the present Government came into office; but a trial in connection with it, which lasted 41 days, in which the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Burke, the Under Secretary, Sir Henry Lake, the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Police, and two of its inspectors, were defendants, was held before the late Irish Chief Baron, and a verdict was returned for the defendants, which was confirmed on appeal. That, he thought, was the most satisfactory reply he could give to the hon. Gentleman, as it was clear from the decision of the Courts that the police had acted under lawful authority on the occasion to which he referred. The decision was given upon those grounds and was given upon much broader grounds in relation to the other defendants, which
  1376
  it was not necessary for him to enter into.
  MR. BUTTdid not wish to say much upon the subject, but thought the Committee ought to know how the matter stood. It was six years ago that this unfortunate transaction took place. A number of people were assaulted by the police, and severely beaten. Two persons brought actions; and at the time there was such an intense feeling in the House of Commons on the subject, that it was promised there should be an investigation by the Government into the conduct of the police when the litigation was concluded. A sum of money exceeding £10,000 had been spent in defending the defendants in those actions. The first trial lasted upwards of 41 days, and in the middle of those 41 days the progress of the trial was interrupted for two months in consequence of the leading counsel having to go away. The jury found a verdict against the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), and decided that the meeting was legal, and that was sufficient to make them responsible for the acts of the police. That portion of the verdict could not be disturbed; but, notwithstanding, the inquiry had never been held, and the police had escaped on the ground that they had not received notice.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISrose to Order. He asked whether the hon. and learned Member was entitled to go into this matter on a Vote for the salaries and expenses of the police officers?
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was not saying a word about the cost of the prosecutions.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and learned Member was perfectly in Order in discussing the subject.
  MR. BUTTsaid, all he wished to say was, that anyone who read the evidence would be satisfied that the verdict of the jury was that the meeting was a legal one.
  MR. LAWmaintained that neither the noble Lord the Marquess of Hartington nor Mr. Burke was responsible for what happened in the Phœnix Park in 1871.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that whatever discredit attached to the affair rested upon the late Executive, not the present.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that no such occurrence could have taken place in England without some official

  1377
  being punished. If the police received no orders, then it was against the police the action should have been brought, and it would have been more candid for the noble Lord to have declared at once who were the real culprits. It was of importance that there should be an expression of the opinion of Irish Members on the subject. When he heard of the proceedings, he said if the law did not assert itself, blood would be shed, and within a few weeks of the occurrence two policemen were shot in the streets of Dublin, and everyone knew that that was because the Executive did not exert themselves. In that way two innocent men lost their lives.
  MR. GRAY, while he acknowledged that the late Administration were to blame for what happened, could not agree that the present Government were altogether free from responsibility. Notwithstanding that, as had just been admitted by the right hon. and learned Attorney General, the Government had escaped upon a technical point, instead of acknowledging their moral responsibility, they still continued to defend actions brought against them for damages. In 1866 Lord Derby's Government obtained the legal opinion of Lord Cairns and others as to their right to disperse by force a meeting in Hyde Park, and that opinion was against such a right, even after giving notice. What notice was given people that they were to be illegally butchered that day? A few wretched handbills distributed the night before. The present Government shared the responsibility attaching to their Predecessors, inasmuch as they opposed actions brought to recover damages inflicted on poor persons, and carried appeals from Court to Court, using for the purpose the power of the purse and the public money without any permission from Parliament—using it, as be contended, immorally and improperly. It was true it was late to reopen the question six years after; but it must be remembered it was only this year they were able to discover how much money had been spent. It amounted to the enormous sum of £ 10,000. Where was that to stop? He hoped the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would bring the question up on Report, so that there should be a full discussion.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was no supporter of the present Government. He
  1378
  was opposed to them in principle and in detail. [Laughter.] Yes, in detail, and he had much pleasure in voting against them that evening when they were in a minority. But he must admit, as he had said before, that whatever disgrace attached to the Phoenix Park riots did not attach to the present Government, who were bound to continue the actions commenced by their Predecessors.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had desired to raise the whole question upon the previous Vote for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions; but he was precluded from doing so, from the fact that when the Vote was passed he was accidentally out of the House. He thought it was his duty to raise the question as regarded the conduct of the police upon that Vote. The right hon. and learned Attorney General had not yet answered the question, whether the superintendents of police, or whoever they were, who set this attack in motion upon unoffending citizens in Dublin were still in the force. If they were not in the force, he had no objection to the Vote passing.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, that the riot had taken place six years ago, and unless a minute investigation were made, it would be impossible to say how many officers who took part in this affair W6re now in the force. The Reports had not been before him, and he was unable to answer the question.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that in the Report for 1873 of the Public Accounts Committee, it was stated that the accountant of this force did not give the security which was required by Act of Parliament.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, be could not say off-hand whether the security had yet been given, but he should inquire into the matter.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would call attention to the matter on the Report of the Votes to the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  (27.) £786,030, to complete the sum for the Constabulary, Ireland.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGsaid, there was an item of £11,000 odd for travelling expenses. He wished to know whether that sum included the travelling expenses of prisoners?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, if the prisoners were conveyed any

  1379
  distance the police were authorized to take conveyances, and those expenses were included.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, there were one or two matters of principle which he wished to draw attention to. The first was that in the Estimates the extra police and old stores were included in one item, so that it was impossible to find out what was the amount voted for either separately. He also thought that in the item of election disturbances it ought to be distinguished how much was for extra police being sent to elections, and how much for actual election disturbances. The third point was, that a sum of £194,868 for pensions was included in six or eight lines, so that it was impossible to find out what the amount of individual pensions was. He thought the money ought not to be voted next year unless more information was given.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHthought the object of the hon. and gallant Member was a really good one, and agreed with him that the receipts from extra police and old stores ought not to be included in one item. He did not know whether a distinction with respect to the election disturbance items could be made, but he would endeavour to do so if it was possible. With regard to the pensions, if the hon. and gallant Member's wish was carried out it would necessitate the printing of 5,000 or 6,000 names; but he thought that fuller information might be given with respect to the new pensions.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary had been most unusually uncandid. [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was not in Order in using the words "candidly for him."
  MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to refer to the case of—
  MR. DODSONrose to Order. The hon. Member had not withdrawn the expression.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had not been asked to do so.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must call upon the hon. Member to distinctly withdraw the word.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would have done so before had he been asked, but would not do so on the ruling of an ex-Chairman. He wished to know, what
  1380
  was the amount of the pension of the late Inspector General, Sir John Wood, in order to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, what was the reason for there being an increase of £19,000 this year for pensions?
  MR. GRAYsaid, explanation should be given why, in counties where the force was not up to its normal strength, a charge for extra men was still imposed. It was believed in Ireland that in order to balance the increasing Vote for superannuation the Government contemplated imposing an additional charge for the maintenance of the barracks on the counties. It was also held that the real reason for Sir John Wood's retirement were the recent scandals in the force. He wished also to know why the Constabulary code of rules was kept a secret, while the Army regulations could be purchased for 1s.? He wished to know, if he moved for these regulations, would they be laid on the Table? If the payment of the backpay of a dismissed constable, afterwards re-instated, was included in this Estimate, why was it not done in an open and above-board manner, so that the House could understand, and hon. Members, if they desired it, challenge it?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the back-pay was included in the Vote. As to the rules of the Constabulary force, they were now under revision, and it would therefore be especially inconvenient to lay them on the Table of the House. Even, however, if this were not the case, he did not think it would be well to lay those regulations on the Table. As to the retirement of Sir John Wood, it was owing to ill-health, and with a pension of £1,080. His retirement was in no way connected with matters which had been referred to. The arrangements for the extra charge to counties had not been altered since the present Government came into office.
  MR. PARNELLasked, why a county should be charged for an extra force, when the extra force was not in the county?
  MR. CALLANsaid, the explanations of the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary were so far satisfactory that he should not move to reduce the Vote. He would take that occasion to assure the right hon. Baronet that in using the

  1381
  word "uncandid," he did not mean to impute anything disrespectful.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not immediately stop the hon. Member when he used the words which he had employed, as he did not catch them. But his attention having been drawn to those words, he must say it was not in Order to use them.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, replying to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), explained the extra charge made to counties. Supposing a county were entitled to 100 men and there was an average number of 10 vacancies per 100 over the whole of Ireland, that would be a fair proportion of vacancies upon the whole county. Then, supposing the county required more men than 90 for its service, those men were sent and charged extra.
  MR. GRAYwished it to be understood definitely and unequivocally, did the Government formally declare that the Constabulary rules were of such a nature that Government were afraid to lay them before the House? That was a serious question, and he wished a plain answer to it.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that he knew of no case of Constabulary rules being published, and he could not consent to such a proposal.
  MR. O'DONNELLcomplained that the officers of the Constabulary were not appointed by open competition. The nominations were in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary, and the Inspector General of Constabulary. That tended to perpetuate caste distinctions, as the nominations were practically limited to the friends of old officers and the hangers-on of the Castle circles. They would rather see the force officered entirely by Englishmen or Scotchmen under open competition than see it entirely officered by Irishmen upon the hugger-mugger system of nomination.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhad stated, on a previous occasion, that he failed to see his way to the introduction of open competition.
  Vote agreed to.
  (28.) £29,800, to complete the sum for Government Prisons, &c. Ireland.
  In reply to Mr. PARNELL,
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he proposed that the same kind of in-
  1382
  quiry should be made into the circumstances of the Irish county prisons as the Home Secretary had undertaken to make in the case of the English prisons. As to the inspection of convict prisons, he had listened to the debate raised the other night by the hon. Gentleman, and he concurred fully in every word which fell from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Cross) on that subject. He thought it would be well that there should be some such visitation of convict prisons instituted as his right hon. Friend had described; but the subject was not without its difficulties, and he doubted whether it would be possible to deal with the matter in the Irish Prisons Bill. He hoped, however, to deal with it as soon as his right hon. Friend and he were able to arrange some system which would apply to both countries.
  Vote agreed to.
  (29.) £68,132, to complete the sum for County Prisons and Reformatories, Ireland.
  MR. PARNELLcalled attention to the great injury which the Irish and Scotch taxpayers would suffer if the Irish and Scotch Prison Bills were not passed this Session.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhoped that both of the Bills alluded to by the hon. Member for Meath would be passed, and that their progress through the House would not be in any way impeded.
  Vote agreed to.
  (30.) £4,427, to complete the sum for the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Ireland.
  (31.) £51,666, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Charges, Ireland.
  MR. CHARLES LEWIScomplained that in preparing these Estimates the small allowances to clerks of the peace under the Land Act of 1870 had been considerably reduced by the Treasury, without any opportunity being given to those gentlemen of being heard against reduction.
  MR. BUTTsaid, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had failed to show that for the amount of work done under the Land Act of 1870, clerks of the peace would not be sufficiently remunerated by the reduced allowances.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the clerks of the peace had notice that the allowances were subject to revision in 1876, and he contended that the allowances, as revised, were ample for the work they had to do.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  SOLWAY SALMON FISHERIES BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to provide for the appointment of Commissioners for making more effectual the Law in regard to Salmon Fisheries in the Solway Firth and its affluents, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. Secretary Cross.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 250.]

  SAINT CATHERINE'S HARBOUR, JERSEY, BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to provide for transferring to the States of the Island of Jersey Saint Catherine's Harbour, Jersey, and certain lands near it, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Mr. Secretary Cross.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 251.]

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill for further amending the Acts relating to the raising of money by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 252.]

  TREASURY CHEST FUND BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to limit and regulate the Treasury Chest Fund, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 253.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Public Loans Remission* (150).
Second Reading—Factors Acts Amendment* (140); Public Works Loans (Ireland)* (143); Companies Acts Amendment (No. 3)* (141).
Committee—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (113); Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order* (111); Open Spaces (Metropolis)* (24-149); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Leith)* (137).
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (Sewage)* (136); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Glasgow)* (135); Colonial Fortifications* (133); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings)* (139), and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS—POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHS).

  THE TELEGRAPH CLAUSES.
  The Christchurch Gas Bill, having been read a third time, it was moved to insert certain of the clauses proposed by the Post Office Authorities to be inserted in Private Bills which may affect the Post Office Telegraph system.
  On Question? Motion agreed to.

  PROTEST.
  "DISSENTIENTE.

  "1. Because the enactments with respect to Post Office Telegraphs proposed to be inserted in Private Bills of this Session are applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, and not only to the particular local authorities, and Companies which happen to have Bills before Parliament, and against none of which any charge of having injured telegraphs has been brought, and it is unfair towards these local authorities and Companies to subject them to exceptional legislation.

  1296

  "2. Because legislation on such a subject should be uniform, secured by a public Bill. The result of submitting the proposed clauses to the decision of Committees on Private Bills has been that they have been in some cases accepted, in other cases rejected or modified and varied in different ways, and it is undesirable in the public interest to give to postal telegraphs such a partial and imperfect protection.

  "3. Because when protection to Crown or public property is required in Private Bills, it has hitherto been confined either to a general saving clause that nothing in the Act contained shall be held to authorize interference with such property, or when the property is to be taken or otherwise affected, to prescribing the manner in which it should be dealt with. Also, when Government Departments offer suggestions and amendments to Private Bills, either by reports to the two Houses or by communication with the promoters, such suggestions and amendments have always been strictly confined to the subject-matter of the Bill. In fact, the principle of finality of rights acquired under Private Acts has always been held so important that it is usual in the case of railway, tramway, and other classes of Bills, to insert a clause to the effect that nothing in the Private Act should exempt the Company from the provisions of future general Acts relating to railways, &c, or from any future revision or alteration under the authority of Parliament, of the authorized tolls and charges.

  "The clauses proposed by the Post Office, contrary to all precedent, distinctly infringe this principle. For instance, in the case of a Bill for making a new line of railway, clauses are proposed not affecting the new line only but all the lines and works of the Company; and if a gas or water Company asks simply for additional capital the opportunity is seized for inserting clauses which have no reference to capital at all, but affect all the existing and future works, mains and pipes of the Company. In fact, it is proposed to use Private Bills as a vehicle for legislation of a general character, and to obtain in detail by putting pressure upon promoters that which might not be carried if presented as a public measure.

  "4. Because one of these clauses which is proposed for insertion in the case of new railway Companies, and of existing railway Companies which have not agreed with the Postmaster General for the sale of their telegraphs, gives to the Postmaster General a right or easement of fixing telegraphic apparatus on the lands and works of the Company without making any payment for the value of the right or easement. In the case of nearly all existing railways the Postmaster General has paid for the value of a similar right or easement, and the promoters of new Railway Bills of the present Session were justified in expecting to be paid for this right or easement just as much as for the conveyance of mails or troops. The clause in question is therefore in the nature of ex post facto legislation without notice of an unjust and unusual character.

  "REDESDALE.
  "HANMER."

  CRIME (IRELAND)—PROTECTION OF LIFE—LEGISLATION— OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, in rising to call the attention of the House to the prevalence of undetected and unpunished crime in Ireland; and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether it is their intention to propose any measures for the better protection of life in that country, said, that, in 1870, the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack made one of his exhaustive speeches on the state of Ireland, stating that it was "not only sad, but shameful," and calling on the then Government to pass measures for the suppression of crime. He foretold that the Bill for the disestablishment of the Irish Church just passed, and the coming Land Bill, would not tend to pacify, but disturb the country. Unfortunately, the present state of Ireland proved his foresight, and if he were now in Opposition, he might with perfect truth repeat every word of the speech he then delivered, for he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) regretted to say it would be his duty to show the House that crime was at least as rampant and unpunished now as it was in 1870. Partly owing to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, and partly from the necessities of the case, the then Government brought forward and passed measures which, while they remained in force, caused a marked diminution in crime in Ireland; but unfortunately, when in 1875 they expired, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, misled by the more peaceful state of the country they had brought about, and having no knowledge of the real state of Ireland save what he derived from Radical officials, brought forward a measure in the other House much less effective than the measures which had expired, and allowed it to be so weakened by that Party, who, if they were not friends of crime, were certainly friends of the criminal, that when passed into law it had proved altogether unequal to meet the exigencies of the case. If that were the case, he might be asked, why was not the attention of the country called to it by some leading Member of the Opposition, either in that, or the other House? The reply was simple—namely, that by so doing the late Government would acknowledge how entirely their message of peace had failed, besides that, at present, the
  1298
  public mind was too much engrossed by the war in the East to take much interest in the fact of a few murders more or less occurring in Ireland; and, unfortunately, the same cause influenced the Press to hardly notice the extension of crime in Ireland. Therefore, though the matter was too large and important for him to bring efficiently before their Lordships, yet coming from a part of Ireland where murder threw a dark shade of grief and terror over all classes, he felt sure the House would show him that indulgence which it was wont to do on such occasions. The last official Report of crime in Ireland was for 1875. He prayed the attention of the House and the public to some extracts from Dr. Handcock's summary of that Report. It stated—
  "The amount of serious crime has now diminished for five years in succession; the amount of crime being less in 1875 than in anyone year since 1864, part of the improvement being in agrarian crime."
  It should be instructive to their Rulers, to whatever Party they belonged, to remember that it was exactly during these years the Peace Preservation Acts of 1870–71 were in force, and that in 1875 they expired. Dr. Handcock went on to state—
  "The favourable result as to agrarian crime up to the end of 1875 has not been borne out in the first seven months of 1876; the agrarian outrages specially reported up to 31st of July being 139 as compared with 82 in the first seven months of 1875—"
  that was, no sooner did the Acts for repression of crime cease, than crime increased 75 per cent. That was, in 1876, there were 239 agrarian crimes; while in 1870, the time when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack demanded repressive measures, he stated there were 169 offences of the same character. Were not then such measures even more necessary at present? He found again, from the same official Report, that in 1875 there were 35 murders and five attempts to murder, and 176 shootings at and wounding, besides other crimes, making in all 400 crimes against human life. For the 35 murders there were only three persons convicted and executed; so, unless one person committed more than a single murder, there were in this one year 32 additional murderers abroad who had not even been brought to trial, and the convictions

  1299
  which took place were in cases entirely disconnected with crimes encouraged by the secret societies, such crimes having been, committed with entire immunity. He was told by some that crime was confined to particular districts—doubtless there were a larger number of Ribbon crimes from time to time in particular districts—and he doubted not that was done systematically; as if murders were perpetrated all through Ireland at the same time, the country would be put under Martial Law; but he regretted to say the areas in which agrarian crime was committed increased. Formerly the county of Mayo was entirely free from Ribbon crime; now it prevailed there as much as in any part of Ireland, but when he mentioned 35 murders and 400 crimes against human life, the number was enough to show that crime was not localized; as if these crimes were committed in one or two districts, they would become deserts! He was also told that in bringing forward this question he was only wishing to protect the lives and interests of landlords; but the same facts showed that it was not only landlords who suffered, but every class. A landlord being better known, if he was murdered, the murder attracted more attention; but farmers of all classes, who were obliged to be out early and late, both in the fields, and at fairs and markets, were more liable to be attacked. What, therefore, he asked for was, that the people of Ireland should be governed by whatever laws might be necessary to protect life and property, the primary object for which Government existed. He would now call attention to a few cases best exemplifying the prevalence of systematic and unpunished crime. Many of their Lordships were familiar with the case of Mr. Bridge. He would give an outline of it. A Mr. Buckley bought an estate in Tipperary in 1863, and appointed Mr. Bridge his agent. A fresh valuation was made of the different holdings, and the rent of all was increased. Unhappily, in consequence of this, an attempt was made by one of the tenants—believed to be a man named Ryan—on Mr. Bridge's life. That attempt was made on March 23rd, 1875. It was unsuccessful, but Mr. Bridge was wounded, and got compensation at the Limerick Assizes. On March 23rd, 1876, a second attempt was made on the life of Mr. Bridge. He was wounded, and
  1300
  the driver of the car—on which were Mr. Bridge and two policemen—was killed. Some three or more persons fired; one man, taken in the act, was tried and executed; but two others, who, after the attack, exchanged shots with the police, had never been apprehended. Both these attempts were made in open day. Unfortunately, the matter had not ended there, for only a few days back, two men named Cahill, who were in possession of the land from which Ryan had been ejected, were dreadfully beaten, in open day, at the market of Tipperary, so badly that one of their lives was dispaired of: no one attempted to interfere to protect them, though about 70 people were present. There was no room to doubt that this was a persevering and systematic attempt to murder any who were disobedient to the Ribbon laws. Another feature in the case was, that it clearly showed how futile was any attempt to check crime through the action of Land Acts; for, in addition to the compensation for disturbance— probably, not less than 10 years' purchase on the rental—Ryan was offered no less than £200 black-mail, by these Brother Cahills, who took the land he held at a higher rent than he paid for it. The members of these secret societies refused to be bound by any law, save the capricious and bloody decisions of their own body. He stated there was yet another feature in the case at least as unfortunate as any other. And, however unwilling he was to cast a slur on the purity of the highest tribunals in the country, he felt he should be wanting in his duty if he did not call attention to the Charges delivered by three of Her Majesty's Judges, on a demand made to them for permission to allow Mr. Bridge to file a criminal information in this matter. It would occupy far too much of the time of the House were he to go through the whole case; he would, therefore, only read a resumé of it, drawn by a hand not very partial to Irish landlords. Lest it should be said that he was attacking those who, not being present, were unable to defend themselves, he had given Notice to the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, a personal and political Friend of these Judges, whom he saw in his place, of his intention to comment on the conduct of these learned Judges. He had called attention to the two attempts on Mr.

  1301
  Bridge's life and the late violent assault on the two Cahills. The Times wrote thus, in a leading article of December 28th, 1876—
  "This unlucky agent, after passing through 'the ordeal by fire,' had to stand the more painful test of savage newspaper criticism. He was denounced as an exterminator, a tyrant, an enemy of the people; he was warned that the attack upon him, for which Crowe had suffered, was only the natural outbreak of a just and holy indignation, and that its repetition could not be prevented by the most ruthless sentences of anti-popular tribunals. Among these threatening criticisms were some of a peculiarly venomous character, published by a leading Dublin and a leading Cork newspaper. Mr. Bridge, the agent and the object of these murderous assaults, applied for a criminal information against the writer of the letters, a person named Casey. A conditional Order was granted, against which Mr. Casey's counsel appealed, and the discussion of the matter in Court has given rise to some of the most eloquent outbursts of political resentment. The application for the discharge of the Order was made to the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, which, at present, since the death of Chief Justice Whiteside, is composed of three Roman Catholic Judges—Mr. Justice O'Brien, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and Mr. Justice Barry, all of them known to be attached to the Liberal Party."
  The article stated that no fault could be found with the decision arrived at—
  "But the manner in which the case was conducted was, we must say, by no means creditable to the judicial system of the Irish Courts. Mr. Casey had written a letter attacking Mr. Bridge's character as a land agent, which may have been, and, no doubt, was, open to severe criticism, and going so far as to assert that Mr. Bridge was himself the cause of the murder, and, in fact, more guilty than the actual perpetrator of it. Clearly, the primâ facie case for a criminal information existed in these letters, which were couched in most violent and malignant language, and imputed to Mr. Bridge and his employer the most detestable and deliberate policy of extermination.…The libels were defended on the remarkable ground that there was a certain line of conduct on the part of a land agent, within the bounds of practical consideration, which rendered him morally responsible for any crime directed against his own person."
  The article concluded—
  "The Bar and the Bench have, with a delightful air of unconsciousness, been engaged in discussing a problem which has hitherto been reserved for the consideration of Ribbon lodges, and which is the definition of the point at which landlord oppression makes agrarian crime inevitable, and, as a great many Irishmen will say, justifiable. The law and its interpreters have hitherto been content to assume that murder is always criminal, whether dictated by the wild justice of revenge or not. Nor have apologies for murder been considered excusable, because the apologist might be able to show that the victim was a hard-hearted man."
  The Freeman's Journal, entirely approv-
  1302
  ing of the Charges of the Judges, made this comment on that of Judge Barry—
  "The most enthusiastic speaker at a Tenant Right meeting could not have denounced in more indignant or glowing language the treatment to which the tenantry on the Buckley estate have been exposed."
  Whether such language on the Bench was conducive to the maintenance of law and order, or whether, by palliating it encouraged crime, he would leave to the House and to the public to decide. But, it might be said, after all, Judges were but men; and he would mention a few facts which might lead to the belief that their conduct in this case was owing to their being influenced by the reign of terror which prevailed. There were Members of the late Government present in the House that night who must be well aware that one of the ablest of the Irish Judges, who distinguished himself by the courageous and successful manner in which he carried out the law, not only against Fenians and Ribbonmen, but also against the lawlessness of his own clergy at the famous election in Gralway, was for many years, whether in town or country, under the special protection of the police. They must remember the case where, on entering Court, he called the Sheriff to account for limiting the ingress to the Court to favoured persons. The Sheriff, after Court, informed him that had been done because he had special information that it was intended to shoot him in Court that day. They must be aware that for some time nearly every day of his life both the Judge and his wife received threatening letters. Though there was some truth in the proverb, that eels got accustomed to skinning, yet it hardly seemed a pleasant process. The present Government must be aware of at least one Member of their Lordships' House who was under the special protection of the police whenever he went to Ireland, only because he raised his rents moderately. They must be aware of a gentleman of large property in Ireland who, owing to the danger he was in, absented himself from Ireland for some years, intending last year to return, was prevented by receiving information, which was also given to Her Majesty's Government, that an attempt would be made on his life between the railway station and his own house. They must be aware that

  1303
  there were few parts of Ireland in which there were not persons under the special protection of the police. It might not therefore he astonishing if even the Judges of the land succumbed to this reign of lawlessness and terror. He would now call attention to some outrages that had occurred during the last few years in his own neighbourhood— that was, within 20 miles of his residence, on the borders of Mayo, Galway, and Roscommon. In 1875, Mr. Nolan, a land agent, was fired at and severely wounded. He swore distinctly to the man who fired at him; but the jury acquitted him. In 1876, Mr. Acton was fired at at 11 o'clock in the day in the high road— there were several persons present, but no one interfered. The supposed cause was that he refused to let a grass field to some tenants who wished for it. This field had never been in their possession. No one was tried for this offence. There had been six murders of small farmers within two years adjoining his residence. In the Spring of the present year part of the Barony of Costello was paraded at night by armed men, who fired, into some houses, wounded Mr. Costello's steward, and administered unlawful oaths. About three months back, about 2 in the morning, many shots were fired into the house of a Roman Catholic gentleman named Rush, who was a constant resident, giving employment to a large number of persons, and in every way a popular man. Many shots went into the bedclothes and gown of Miss Rush, his sister, who fortunately was not in bed; more shots were again fired close to her head when she was sitting in a room adjoining. The lady was so frightened she could not be induced to swear any information. In consequence of this outrage extra police were sent down and charged on the district. At a private meeting called to advise the Lord Lieutenant as to what lands should be charged, only one magistrate attended beside the resident magistrate. All magistrates in the neighbourhood had threatening letters. The parish priest, being a friend of Mr. Rush's, called on him after the outrage, for which reason the people would not pay his dues, consequently, he got up a subscription to pay the cost of the police, and Mr. Rush was advised to pay the cost himself. The Government soon after, contrary to the advice of the magistrates, relieved the district
  1304
  from further charge for the police, though a man had been arrested in putting a red mark, the sign of blood, on Mr. Rush's door. Near Myloch, in County Gralway, 31 slugs were fired into the body of a gentleman named Barrett in open day on the public road. No one was arrested—it was thought he was mistaken for his father, who had some difference with his tenants. Within 10 days Mr. Young was shot dead in the County of Roscommon, a few miles from the site of the previous outrage. He was not 100 yards from his own door. This occurred on the market day of Castlerea, within half a mile of that town. The road was not 200 yards from Mr. Young's house—there was a path by which some neighbours usually went to market close to the spot at which he was murdered; no one passed that way on that day. A report of the murder was current at Claremorris, 20 miles off, the day before it took place. At a public meeting at Castlerea after the murder the parish priest said—"Mr. Young was a good landlord, a just and impartial magistrate, a gentleman most charitable to the poor." The cause of his murder was supposed to be on account of his having committed a man of bad character to prison for two months. A person gave information to the police after the murder that he had seen an ill-looking stranger about — his house was set on fire in four places the night after, and an office burnt down. The police believed they had had the man in custody who committed these outrages; but no evidence could be obtained against him, or any other person. If the Westmeath Act were in force, he could for a time at least be prevented from from committing further crime. In 1870, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, in these crimes the disposition to crime and outrage cropped out; but in addition to that there was a substratum of dissatisfaction and prone-ness to outrage of which statistics could give no idea. Crime had unfortunately become so habitual that it had a facetious side. To wit—there was a young man in his neighbourhood well known to have committed a murder. His friends always called him by the name of the man he murdered. Let him tell them an old woman's story:—A tenant came to a friend of his to complain of some small differences between him and his

  1305
  herd. His friend told him he was wrong. Next day an old dame of 70 odd, the mother of the tenant, came to see his friend; he asked her what she wanted, "Aye, sure, your honour, I'm come to give up the land." His friend said— "That's the last thing you'll do; what do you want?" The old woman, with a sly look, replied—"Sure, your honour, had we not better give up the land? Your honour's taken a prejudice against my boy; and in these bad times if anything happened to your honour, they might say he did it." This was a kind, thoughtful old lady; but, with your neighbour just assassinated the joke was a bad one. He was sorry where crime was so common jokes were not confined to one class. He knew a gentleman who went to visit a prisoner in a gaol, awaiting his trial for having fired at a land agent who was unpopular among all classes. He said —"Aye, Pat, you're a bother headed fellow!" "Why does your honour say that?" "Aye," replied the visitor, "why the Divil didn't you shoot straight?" He supposed that the reply to his statistics would be—Oh! but the Judges all through Ireland were congratulating the Grand Juries on the lightness of the calendar. But what did that do but confirm the statistics he had laid before the House. It showed, not that crime did not exist, but that, whereas formerly the difficulty was to get a jury to convict on the clearest evidence, now so much more was the criminal feared or favoured that no one would come forward to give evidence against him. And even now, what said Judge Lawson, of Tipperary—
  "A shocking case occurred in their streets on the 29th of May last, when a man named John Dwyer was assaulted and so injured that he died of his wounds in three weeks after. He received his injuries in the public streets on a fair-day between three and four o'clock, and so confident were the assailants of the concurrence of the people that they made no attempt at concealment. It seemed as if all the persons present had lost all instincts of humanity, with the exception of one woman, who came to the aid of the wounded man, for which she was threatened. She thought to take the injured man into a house, but every door was shut against her. A similar case happened in the town of Tipperary where two brothers, who were pursuing their business, were so badly beaten in the open day that the life of one of them was despaired of."
  The last point to which he would call the attention of the House was the unbridled licence of what was called the
  1306
  National Press of Ireland. Openly and unchecked, it incited to murder and rebellion; by misrepresentation it disseminated hatred between class and class, and inculcated deadly hostility to English connection, as well as to all law or order. He did not generally read these journals, but in looking for comments on Bridge's case, he came upon the Christmas supplement of The Nation—a paper having a very large circulation among the middle and lower orders in Ireland. It was full of the poems of a certain deceased Fenian named Richard Dalton Williams—a verse or two would show their tone. In one called "A Prophecy," referring to England and her Government, were these lines—
  "Now thou art a sink of evil, a serpent's nest, a tiger's den,
  An iron-crowned and armed devil, having power to torture men;
  Aged tyrant, crime o'erladen, Moloch gorged with blood and tears
  Of martyred brave and ruined maiden—murdress of a thousand years!"
  Then there were four war songs—"The Munster War Song," "The Leinster War Song," "The Western War Song," and "The Irish War Song," all in the same spirit, inciting to deadliest enmity to England. One entitled "The Extermination" ran thus—
  "When tyranny's pampered and purple-clad minions,
  Drive forth the lone widow and orphan to die,
  Shall no angel of vengeance unfurl his red pinions,
  And grasping sharp thunderbolts rush from on high!"
  These were the songs sung through every village in Ireland. It was to enable the people to read this literature that millions were yearly spent on education; nor was the smallest endeavour made by Government to stay its propagation. Was it astonishing that the Irish people believed crime to be virtuous? He had shown that in one year there were 35 murders, and above 400 crimes against human life undetected and unpunished. He had shown that these outrages formerly perpetrated at night, now were often committed in open day, without any attempt at concealment, in public places, often before many persons, none of whom attempted to interfere with the aggressor, or would give evidence against him. He feared this arose from the Ribbon and Fenian Societies being united

  1307
  and having a very complete and efficient organization. The perfection of the Fenian organization was shown at the O'Connell Centenary. There were 200,000 strangers in Dublin that day. The Fenians disturbed the municipal arrangements, but not a window was broken, nor a man arrested, even for drunkenness. He had shown that formerly, the worst crimes were confined to a few localities—not so now; their operation was more extended. The district in which he lived was as peaceable as any part of the world, now it was in the sad state he had shown. In fact, these societies, formed only for sedition and murder, ruled in Ireland. The Executive was paralyzed. No one but those who lived in districts where these societies were actively carrying out their work could realize the state of things that existed. It was always believed that the two Peace Preservation Bills of the late Government were passed owing to the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Spencer) happening to be in a locality when two murders were committed. In these districts, disquietude and apprehension —a shadow of an untimely and cruel death—threw a gloom over the whole community. It was not for him to suggest remedies, but the longer they were delayed the more violent they must be. The Westmeath Act, extended to all Ireland, would be useful to check crime, and would only be put in force in those districts where crime was rampant. Her Majesty's Government had a large majority in both Houses of Parliament, and could readily obtain the sanction of Parliament for any measures they might deem necessary for the suppression of crime. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, in 1870—
  "I maintain that the first duty of Government, the first for which it exists, and what constitutes the justification for its being a Government, is that it shall suppress outrage and enforce security for life and property."
  That that duty was not fulfilled, the statement he had laid before their Lordships clearly demonstrated; and he asked Her Majesty's Government what measures they proposed towards that end? Great was their responsibility if they refused protection to the loyal and peace-abiding portion of the Irish people.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH (the LORD LIEUTENANT of IRELAND)said, he had been anxious not to show any want
  1308
  of courtesy to the noble Lord, and, therefore, understanding that he was about to put this Question this evening, he had come down to the House, and had listened with great attention and patience to all he had to say on the subject. In the course of the noble Lord's speech he could not help being reminded of a remark made by an eminent writer, who, speaking of another Member of their Lordships' House, said he had a wonderful habit of vilifying his own country. Now, the noble Lord had brought an indictment against his country which was certainly of a sufficiently serious description to call for a reply on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He thought he should be able, in the few remarks he had to make on the present state and condition of Ireland, to calm the fears of his noble Friend, and to re-assure him and their Lordships on the present condition of the country. He wished, in the first place, to remark upon the line which his noble Friend had adopted in his allusions to the case of "The Queen v. Casey." It would have been objectionable if his noble Friend had alluded in terms to the remarks which fell in the course of that trial from the learned Judges on the bench—for he held it to be of the highest importance that the freedom and independence of Her Majesty's Judges should be rigidly maintained; but his noble Friend had taken a course which was even more objectionable, for he had quoted newspaper comments upon the opinions expressed by the Judges, without enabling their Lordships to judge whether those comments were justifiable in point of fact, and without enabling anyone to reply to them. Coming to the general question, he (the Duke of Marlborough) could not understand whence the noble Lord obtained the statistics which he had quoted in support of his case. So far as he understood his noble Friend's argument, it was to the effect that the relaxation of repressive measures which existed prior to the year 1875 had tended to an increased commission of the crimes against which those Acts of Parliament were directed. He could not admit the deduction of his noble Friend, because the only relaxation effected by the Act of 1875 was the omission of that part of the Peace Preservation Act which enabled the Lord Lieutenant

  1309
  to specially proclaim certain districts. It could not he denied that there were some particular parts of the country which gave cause for anxiety at the present time; but it was not fair to infer from that fact that the whole of Ireland was in a disturbed condition, requiring serious attention, and even the interference of Parliament. In 1870 Ireland was in a very painful condition. He found, from the statistics at his disposal, that the number of outrages reported to the police in a series of years were as follows:—In 1870, 4,321; in 1871, 2,897; in 1872, 3,238; in 1873, 2,275; in 1874, 2,096; in 1875, 2,001; and in 1876, 2,048. These figures showed a progressive decrease—owing, no doubt, to the legislation that had taken place of late years—and in the face of them he could see no reason for reverting to the extremely repressive laws which existed prior to the Act of 1875. He believed, from the facts he had stated, that the relaxation that had taken place in the repressive measures that had been passed for Ireland had been wisely conceived and carried out. The figures with regard to agrarian crimes between 1870 and 1876 were as follows:—In 1870, 767; in 1871, 1,329; in 1872, 373; in 1873, 256; in 1874, 213; in 1875, 136; and in 1876, 212. These last figures showed an increase in the number of crimes; but, on examining the details, he found that the crimes were less serious in their character than those committed in the previous years. The number of agrarian murders were: —In 1870, 5; in 1871, 5; in 1872, 4; in 1873, 5; in 1874, 5; in 1875, 9; and in 1876, 4; and up to the 12th of this month in this year there had only been 2. Another remarkable comparison was that relating to threatening letters written on subjects having reference to the land. The following were the figures showing the number of these documents: In 1870 there were 624 cases of threatening letters relating to land; in 1871 there were 173; in 1872, 125; in 1873, 112; in 1874, 78; in 1875, 54; and in 1876 the number had increased to 86. His noble Friend (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had drawn a gloomy picture of the condition of his own part of the country, and it could not denied that the state of parts of Mayo, Galway, and Roscommon was such as to give some grounds for uneasiness. But, comparing the present condition of
  1310
  that part of the country with its condition in 1870, he thought the comparison was not altogether unfavourable. He had recently read the charge of Baron Deasy to the Grand Jury at the opening of the Assizes for the county of Mayo in the year 1870. The learned Judge there commented on the state of the county. He mentioned that there were 30 cases of writing threatening letters relating to land, 189 cases of agrarian outrage since the previous Assizes, and 35 cases of administering unlawful oaths—a crime of a very dangerous character. Now, turning from that statement to the reports which had been presented last year he found the cases of outrage had fallen from 189 to 129; and that taking the counties of Galway, Roscommon, Leitrim, and Sligo, there were only 28 cases of the more serious class of outrages—there being in Galway only one case of murder, in Mayo one case of firing at the person, in Roscommon one case of manslaughter, and in Sligo one case of murder, there being absolutely no case of administering unlawful oaths, upon which offence the learned Judge to whom he had just referred had spoken very strongly at Castlebar, while the cases of sending threatening letters had dwindled down to 11. He did not think he need trouble the House with any further statistics. He had already said that the crimes to which his noble Friend had alluded could not be passed over without serious consideration—they were undoubtedly of a very painful character; and it could not be denied that at various times and in various parts of Ireland there were found to be ebullitions of crime. The condition of Ireland was not, however, he maintained to be judged by isolated cases. That condition was, on the whole, progressive and satisfactory. The legislation to which his noble Friend referred had not yet been condemned, and could not fairly be said to have borne any evil fruit. The law which was now in existence with the view to protecting life and property in Ireland was the Peace Preservation Act of 1875, by which the Lord Lieutenant was enabled to proclaim a county; and there were two great provisions of that Act which were of the utmost importance for the prevention of crime—those by which the Lord Lieutenant was empowered to send a special force into a county, and to levy the costs on the inhabitants of the district; and

  1311
  he had before him a Report of an Inspector with respect to the district to which his noble Friend had referred in his own county, which clearly showed how salutary was the operation of the latter provision especially. He hoped, therefore, his noble Friend would allow his fears to be calmed. He did not for a moment mean to treat lightly any of the cases to which he had referred. On the contrary, he looked upon the statements of the noble Lord as demanding the serious attention of the Government. That serious consideration he had given to them in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and they were of opinion that beneficial legislation had already done much, and that the gradual relaxing of the penal laws now in force was a process which need not be discontinued. Their Lordships had no cause for distrust—at all events, he hoped never during his life to have to advise Her Majesty's Government to re-enact laws which so long as they existed must cast a slur upon the country.
  LORD O'HAGANstrongly protested against the attacks which had been made by the noble Lord who brought forward the subject (Lord Oranmore and Browne) on persons occupying high judicial office in Ireland, upon totally inadequate grounds, and at a time when proceedings were actually pending before the Courts of Justice with reference to the facts out of which the cases to which the noble Lord called attention had arisen. He himself knew something officially and judicially about the state of Ireland for the last 20 years, and, unless he was labouring under a great delusion, he thought he could show that the condition of the country at the present moment was exceptional—not only in comparison with its own sad antecedents, but such as to place it in a very forward position in the matter of freedom from crime among the nations of the world. The only evidence to which the noble Lord had referred which was really worthy of the attention of the House was that afforded by the judicial statistics; but these statistics showed that in fact there had been a great diminution in the number of agrarian outrages in Ireland. Their Lordships had, perhaps, been shocked to hear of the number of crimes against human life; but it must be remembered that the number given in-
  1312
  cluded, not only murder and manslaughter, but such offences as endangering the safety of railway passengers, unlawfully abandoning children under two years of age, &c. The case which had been stated by the noble Lord, not against a particular county, but against Ireland in general, rested on the mere gossip of the country, on perfectly unsustained assertion, and on imperfect extracts from the judicial statistics. It was of great importance that such statements should receive an authoritative contradiction. The noble Duke who had addressed the House (the Duke of Marlborough) said in February last, at a banquet in Dublin—
  "No capital will ever be expended in a country unless there be due and adequate protection afforded to that capital, so that those who want remunerative investments—investments of capital—whether in land or money, will be secured in the enjoyment of the productiveness of that capital. Now, I find that the most satisfactory feature in the present state of the country is the diminution of crime generally. If Ireland could ever become a law-abiding people, it would be a country unrivalled among the countries of Europe in prosperity and importance."
  In that sentiment he (Lord O'Hagan) concurred; and he thought it would be an in-jury at once to the Irish people and to the interests of the Empire if reports were spread and credited that Ireland was an unsafe place to live in. To show what was the actual state of things he would refer to the statements made by the Judges at the Assizes held during the last fortnight. It ought to be borne in mind, in considering that evidence, that those Judges received reports of the cases in which the offenders had escaped detection; and as the Irish Constabulary were peculiarly well-informed, it might be assumed that they were aware of every considerable crime. The charges of all the Judges demonstrated that the absence of crime was positively marvellous, and that the condition of things since the previous Assizes had been most orderly and satisfactory. The Recorder of the City of Dublin spoke of the "small number of cases for trial since last session," and added—
  "This circumstance, taken in connection with the satisfactory criminal statistics as exhibited by the reports prepared by the various Crown Solicitors for the going Judges of Assize, was one calling for universal approbation as evidence of the happy change in national affairs."
  In the county of Cork there was at the

  1313
  Macroom Quarter Sessions, in the West Riding, no criminal business; while at the Cork Quarter Sessions, in the East Riding, the chairman congratulated the grand juryon the "absence of crime since last sessions"—no offence of any kind having been reported to the Constabulary from April 29 to June 21. In the County Clare, Mr. Justice Keogh, addressing the grand jury, said—
  "Your duty on this side of the Court is very light. There are in all but six bills to go before you, none of which calls for any observation whatever."
  In the County of Limerick the Judge said—
  "The state of your county, with two exceptions, is a matter for congratulation. I believe the number of bills to be sent before you will not exceed seven or eight."
  In the City of Limerick there were only two bills—one for concealing the birth of a child, and the other for passing counterfeit coin. At the Westmeath Assizes, Baron Deasy congratulated the Grand Jury on the "tranquil state" of the county. In King's County Mr. Justice O'Brien spoke of the "peaceable state" of that district. Serjeant Armstrong, who presided at the Assizes in County Kilkenny, said "there was every reason to be satisfied with the orderly condition" of the county. In the City of Kilkenny, Mr. Justice Law-son, addressing the Grand Jury, said "he was happy to say the calendar showed an almost total immunity from crime, there being only one case to go before them—namely, an assault on a warder which had been committed a few days previously." In the county of Longford, in the same way, the Chief Baron told the Grand Jury that their duties would be extremely light, there being only three bills of a simple character to go before them. He complained, however—and it was the only complaint which any of the Judges appeared to have made—that in 15 cases which had been reported by the Constabulary, no person had been made amenable. In Fermanagh, the Chief Baron congratulated the Grand Jury that there was no criminal case to go before them. In Leitrim, the Chief Justice of Ireland observed to the Grand Jury, that there was but one bill to go before them, and it was not likely to engage their attention long. In Sligo, only a few days ago, Baron Dowse congratulated
  1314
  the Grand Jury on the peaceful state of the county, as there were only six indictments to go before them, representing four cases, and remarked that from the returns published there appeared to be "no undiscovered crime." The learned Judge also said he was assured by the County Inspector that there had been a remarkable decrease in all classes of crimes, especially assaults. In a word, the charges of all the Judges who had addressed Grand Juries since the Assizes began testified not only to the absence of crime, but to the quiet and satisfactory condition of the country, and it appeared to him that the noble Lord (Lord Oran-more and Browne) would have done well to have ascertained those facts before he ventured to make the particular eases which had occurred in his own neighbourhood the ground of a libel upon the whole of Ireland. Within the memory of man that country had never been in so peaceful a state as at the present moment. He (Lord O'Hagan) was sure their Lordships would agree that the noble Lord's impeachment had entirely failed in fact, and. that it had been conclusively answered by the highest authorities.
  LORD CARLINGFORDremarked that the speeches of the Lord Lieutenant and of his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down had corrected in a very important and satisfactory manner the statements of the noble Lord who had introduced the subject. But for those two speeches the House might have been under the impression that Ireland was, so far as crime was concerned, in a very bad condition indeed:—instead of which it appeared that the condition of the country on the whole was peaceful and satisfactory, and that there was less agrarian crime than there had been at almost any other period. When it was considered that in 1870 or 1871 the number of agrarian crimes committed in Ireland amounted to 1,329, and that in 1876 there were only 212, it would be seen that there was no cause for such alarm as the noble Lord seemed to feel. The cases which had recently occurred no doubt called for serious notice; but they were only, so to speak, survivals of the state of crime which had existed in Ireland for generations. In introducing in "another place" the Peace Preservation Bill of 1870, he had the satisfaction of stating that bad as thing were at

  1315
  that moment, they compared favourably with earlier years; that while in the year 1846 the number of cases of all kinds reported by the Constabulary was 20,000, in 1870 the return had fallen to 4,000, and the gradual diminution thus indicated had continued down to the present time. In these circumstances, which were so well calculated to inspire them with hope as to the future, it seemed to him that the noble Lord had altogether failed to prove the necessity of the very serious and formidable step which he asked the Government to take. Repressive legislation, although sometimes necessary, could not but be regarded as an evil; it created a bad feeling among the ignorant and excitable classes, and was used by a certain set of politicians in Ireland to keep alive and intensify the old traditions of hostility to England. A return to such a state of things was not therefore to be lightly proposed; and if ever the Government should be compelled to take that step, they might expect to see a postponement of the day when the Irish people as a whole would be animated with respect for the law and goodwill towards this country.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, in reply, said, he contended that neither the noble Duke, nor the other noble Lords had attempted to reply to his statistics of crime; indeed, as they were taken from the last statistics published by the authority of the Government, it was impossible to do so. The noble and learned Lord had quoted from the Charges of the Judges in Ireland at last Assizes, but had failed to notice the charge of Judge Lawson which he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had read; and those the noble and learned Lord had read, with one exception, adverted only to the lightness of the calendar, which, as he had foreseen, proved only that no evidence could be obtained to bring to trial those who had committed crime, while the statistics evidenced beyond doubt that crime was prevalent. He perfectly agreed with the quotation made by the noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) from a speech delivered in Dublin by the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough), that prosperity would come to Ireland if ever it became a law-abiding country; but he held that all evidence went to show that Irishmen must be made to fear the law before they would obey it. He must have a
  1316
  far greater interest in capital coming into Ireland, as well as in the existence of order, than any of the noble Lords who had spoken, because he was so unpatriotic as to wish to sell his property, and in the meantime he resided there. He regretted exceedingly that Her Majesty's Government so little appreciated the dangerous state of Ireland as to deem that crime could be suppressed without demanding further powers from Parliament.

  PRECOGNITION (SCOTLAND)—SUDDEN AND SUSPICIOUS DEATHS.

    MOTION FOE RETURNS.
    THE EARL OF MINTOmoved for Returns from each county in Scotland of the number of cases of sudden death or of death under suspicious or unknown circumstances which had been the subject of precognition (secret inquest) by procurators fiscal (public prosecutors) in each of the years 1875–76; also specifying the number of such cases as have afterwards been the subject of criminal
    THE DUKE OF RICHMONDand GORDON had no objection to the production of the Returns, provided the words "secret inquest" and "public prosecutors" were struck out; he did not see how they were necessary.
    THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, that his only wish in introducing those words was to make the Notice more intelligible, it being often said that Scotch law language was so barbarous that nobody in England understood it. All he wished was to make the Return as intelligible as possible, and he could not understand the objection the noble Duke had to the words; but, of course, if the noble Duke objected, to them, rather than not have the Return he would leave them out.
    The words having accordingly been struck out—
    Motion agreed to; Returns ordered to be laid before the House.
    House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.