Sitting of 23 July 1877

MINUTES.
—PUBLIC BILLS— Ordered—Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment*.
First Reading—Inclosure* [262].
Second Reading—Police Expenses Act Continuance* [259].
Select Committee—Parliamentary and Municipal Registration [59], nominated.
Committee — County Officers and Courts (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [254]—R.P.; Prisons (Ireland) (re-comm.)* [219].
Third Reading — Saint Catherine's Harbour, Jersey* [251], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DUBLIN CENTRAL TRAMWAYS BILL.
  [Lords]—[by Order.]
  DUBLIN CENTRAL TRAMWAYS BILL.

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in moving that the Consideration be deferred for three months, said that the original estimate on the Bill, when presented to the House of Lords, was £12,000, upon which a deposit of 5 per cent was made. That estimate had now been increased to £40,000, while the deposit had not been correspondingly increased. The Select Committee of the House of Commons had passed the Bill, inserting the following clause:—
    "Whereas it appeared that the said Estimate was wholly insufficient, and that to complete the works a further sum will he required, it shall not be lawful for the company to put any of the powers of this Act in execution until they have deposited a further sum in the Court of Chancery of £1,400."
    A Bill passed upon such a Report as that would be a violation of the Standing Orders of the House. The argument used by the promoters of the Bill was, that the increase had been caused by the House of Lords striking out the clause relating to steam power; but the original Bill provided for the use of steam or other power, and an equal expense would follow upon the use of either power. He submitted that the extra deposit provided for in the clause he had read did not meet the case, as it was not done under
    1654
    the authority of the Standing Orders and would enable the promoters to keep their powers hanging over the parties concerned without giving the required guarantee in the shape of the proper deposit paid at once. It was an illustration of the evils that might arise if the Report of the Committee was acted upon, that the the promoter of this Bill had become a bankrupt since it passed the House of Lords, and had parted with his interest in the Bill, thus indicating that the additional deposit of 5 per cent had not been made, because he was unable to provide the deposit, and therefore unfitted, to be entrusted with a concession of this sort. This case would make a bad precedent and open a door to all the evils which the Standing Order was intended to prevent. Although the deposit had, within the last day or two, been paid, yet he held that the Standing Orders had not been strictly observed, and he intended to divide the House, unless a statement by the Chairman of the Committee could remove the objections which he had expressed. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the rejection of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave, out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Ashley.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. RODWELLsaid, he knew nothing of the facts of the case, but he looked upon it as a question of principle; and if what the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had stated was correct, it seemed to him there had been a gross infringement of the Standing Orders. The question would arise whether it was such an infringement as would be fatal to the Bill. In his experience, it was an unprecedented case. Two Standing Orders were involved. One provided that a deposit should be paid into the Court of Chancery in Ireland, for the purpose of guaranteeing those whose property was affected, and in order to show the bona fides of the scheme. In the interest of the public that was a most important Standing Order; for parties might bring forward Bills which would greatly affect the public interest and the interest of property, and yet not have any capital to warrant their undertaking. In this case the Committee had exceeded their duty, and had misunderstood their

    1655
    duty, because until the Standing Orders were complied with, no Committee could deal with such a question as this at all. In this case £600 was the deposit originally made, and £2,000 was the deposit required. A few years ago, a special tribunal was instituted to inquire into the question of estimates, and the Bill would at once have been stopped on the showing before that tribunal that the estimate was insufficient, or that the deposit was insufficient. In both those respects there had been a default, and if the Bill was sanctioned without further investigation all Standing Orders had better be erased. The matter should be referred back to the Standing Orders Committee, because no private Committee could take upon itself to do what was in direct violation of the Standing Orders. No case similar to this had arisen in his Parliamentary experience.
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,as Chairman of the Committee on the Bill under notice, said, the Committee did not state that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, because it was their opinion, so far as they could tell, that they had been complied with. The question was entirely one of estimate. The Bill came before the Committee supported by the local authorities and by the townships through which the tramways would pass, and by the Corporation of the City of Dublin; in fact, there was no opposition to it at all, except from the tramway company which had already many tramways in the vicinity of Dublin, and which did not oppose so much on the ground of competition, as on the ground of jealousy at the introduction of a new company in the neighbourhood of Dublin. As regarded the estimate, no doubt it was a rather startling fact in Committee when it appeared that the original estimate of £12,000 was proposed to be increased to £40,000; but, in the first place, this increase was honestly and straightforwardly stated in answer to a question of the counsel for the Bill; and the circumstances of the increase were not the subject of much evidence, as the opponents did not attempt to prove that the original estimate was insufficient. The Committee were unanimously of opinion that there was no evidence to show that the original estimate had been insufficient; but as in consequence of the change made at the instance of the Board of Trade in the
    1656
    House of Lords, whereby steam was struck out of the Bill, the expense would be greatly increased, it seemed to them a case in which a change had become necessary. They did not act hastily; they sent a message to Mr. Rickards, the Speaker's Counsel, requesting him to advise with them. He asked were they satisfied that the original estimate was bonâ fide? They said they were. Were they satisfied that the application was straightforwardly made? They were satisfied of that. Then he said the Bill might be saved by putting into it a clause which he would draft. That clause had been embodied in the Bill, and was to the effect that before any of the works were executed, an additional amount should be deposited. That increase had been deposited. Another change had also been made, greatly to the advantage of the Bill, and it came in a shape which commended itself to the Committee, because of the substantial character of Mr. Lombard, the gentleman who promoted it. There could be no doubt that the works would be carried out satisfactorily and substantially. The Committee were satisfied that there was no mala fides in the case. He admitted that it was exceptional, but did not think it would constitute a precedent; or even if it did, that it would be otherwise than a good one. He believed the Committee were right in the course they had taken, acting as they did, not on their own opinion alone, but on the advice of Mr. Rickards. When a good deal of time had been spent upon a Bill of this sort, which was supported by all the local authorities and opposed by no one of importance, it was a pity that it should be opposed by a technical objection raised at the last stage.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, this was a very important point, well deserving the attention of the House. The House would recognize the pains and care which the Committee had brought to this inquiry, and it was important to avoid diminishing the authority of a Select Committee; but the statements made by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Bodwell) showed that this was a very exceptional and peculiar case. In 1850 and in 1853 questions of the sort arose, and a Motion was made, to refer the Bills to the Examiner of Private Bills, that he might report to the House whether or

    1657
    not there had been any infractions of the Standing Orders. He would not prejudge this case, but would be satisfied if they could obtain the Report of the Examiner. It appeared to be exceedingly doubtful whether the Committee had observed the Standing Orders, and especially that one which was intended to prevent schemes obtaining the authority of Parliament which might be used in order to occupy the ground, and prevent the operation of genuine companies. It was also intended to prevent such things as occurred in foreign countries, where persons obtained concessions, and made what they could out of them. The only security Parliament had been able to devise had been to require that the estimates of these schemes should be bonâ fide, and that a sufficient deposit should be made. It would be lamentable if, on the decision of a single Committee, they were to deviate from those rules which had obtained hitherto general approval, and to depart from the spirit of the Standing Orders. But they had a Committee on Standing Orders, with an Examiner, who reported to the Committee. He should be sorry if there were any division on the question, as it might put the parties in a false position, and inflict unnecessary hardships on the promoters of the Bill. If the Bill was referred back to the Committee it would go to the Examiner, and if they thought the circumstances were such that the House might take an exceptional course the matter would be regularly proceeded with. He thought if both the Motion and the Amendment were withdrawn, it would be well if a Motion was passed, which he would then move, that the Bill, as amended in Committee, be referred to the Examiner of Petitions on Private Bills, to inquire whether the Amendments involved any infraction of the Standing Orders of the House.
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHexpressed his readiness to accede to the course suggested by the Chairman of Ways and Means.
    Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Ordered, That the Bill, as amended in the Committee, he referred to the Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills, to inquire whether the Amendments involve any infraction of the Standing Orders of this House,—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

QUESTIONS.

  EDUCATION — ENDOWED SCHOOLS — THE TONBRIDGE SCHOOL.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDSMIDasked the Vice President of the Council, What has become of the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the future management of the Tonbridge School?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, I am informed by the Charity Commissioners that the scheme for Tonbridge School, a draft of which was published some time since by them, has been withdrawn by them in consequence of some liberal proposals which have been made by the Skinners' Company for the establishment and endowment of a second or middle school, for the benefit of the district interested in Sir Andrew Judd's School, the school alluded to by the hon. Gentleman. The scheme for Sir Andrew Judd's School had consequently to be re-cast, and copies are in the hands of the Skinners' Company for their consideration. There is, therefore, reason to hope that a satisfactory scheme may be arranged for this important foundation.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—STOKESLEY COUNTY COURTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WAIT (for Sir CHARLES LEGARD)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the case of "Brunton v. Pennington," tried in the County Court of Yorkshire, holden at Stokesley on the 18th May 1877, If he is able to state to the House on what grounds the Judge refused to grant a case for the opinion of the High Court, on the legal points of great importance to a large class of persons which were then raised; whether this is the third time, since January 1876, that a case has been heard at that court, which depended on the true construction of an Act of Parliament, 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 32, and whether on each of those occasions a case for the opinion of the High Court, on the true construction of that Act, has been asked for and refused; and, on what grounds the Judge refused to receive the documentary evidence submitted to him, under the Act 34 and 35 Vic. c. 112, and whether on each of the previous occasions above referred to, similar documentary evi-

  1659
  dence under the same Act was submitted and received?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he was unable to state why the Judge had refused to grant a case for the opinion of the High Court on the legal points involved in the case referred to; and, although he did not think such a Question should be put to him, he had put himself in communication with the Judge with a view to its being answered.

  DISSENTING SERVICES IN PARISH CHURCHYARDS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SEELYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a letter written by the Bishop of Lincoln to the Vicar of Sutton-in-Ashfield, from which it appears that the Vicar had announced his "intention of allowing the churchyard of that parish to be used for other services than those of the Church of England;" and in which letter the Bishop warns the Vicar that by acting upon this intention he will render himself liable to legal proceedings; and, whether, in his opinion, the incumbent of a parish who permits the burial of Nonconformists by Nonconformist ministers, with "other services than those of the Church of England," does so render himself liable to legal proceedings?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, my attention has been drawn to the letter alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member for Lincoln. In my opinion, the incumbent of a parish who permits the burial of Nonconformists by Nonconformist ministers with other services than those of the Church of England renders himself liable to be proceeded against under an Act which was recently passed by Parliament, the provisions of which will doubtless be in the recollection of the hon. Member—I mean the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874.

  BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND)— COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY—THE BALLINAMORE AND ULSTER CANALS.

    QUESTION.
    CAPTAIN O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the intention of Government that the inquiry to be held during the Recess into the administration and constitution of the Board of Works is to include within its
    1660
    scope the present useless condition of the Ballinamore and Ulster Canals, with a view to suggesting a remedy and prevent the final and complete loss of the large sums of public money spent on their construction—taking into consideration the resolutions passed by the Fermanagh Grand Jury at the March and July Assizes of 1877, and by the trustees from the counties of Cavan, Fermanagh, Leitrim, and Roscommon, in September 1875?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, the inquiry which my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury undertook to hold was an inquiry into the administration and constitution of the Board of Public Works in Ireland. I do not see how it will be possible to combine an inquiry into the constitution of a Department with one into the history and condition of a canal.

  NAVY—PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT OF MARINES.—QUESTION.
  MR. GORST,asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Treasury Warrant for the promised scheme of promotion and retirement in the Royal Marines will be laid upon the Table of the House at the same time as the Warrant for the new scheme of promotion and retirement in the Army?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, the scheme, or any measure which the Government might adopt with regard to the promotion and retirement of Royal Marines, would not form the subject of a Treasury Warrant, but of an Order in Council, which would be submitted to Her Majesty in the usual way by the Lords of the Admiralty. He understood that the Report of the Committee upon which the scheme would be founded had been kept back until the Government had decided on the scheme for the Army, which would be in the hands of the Admiralty in the course of a few days. The case of the Marines would differ from that of the Army, because an Army Warrant would require a Vote of money, whereas the money needed for the Marines had already been voted.

  THE NEW NAVAL COLLEGE, DARTMOUTH.—QUESTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When

  1661
  Government will bring forward the Vote for the proposed purchase of the Mount Boone Site?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he was in communication with the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to the Vote in question. He had endeavoured to state as near as possible when the Vote would be brought forward.

  ITALY AND ALBANIA.—QUESTION.
  MR. WAITasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has reached Her Majesty's Government of an expedition being secretly fitted out at an Italian port in the Adriatic with a view to a descent on the coast of Albania; and, if so, whether he will communicate such information to the House?
  MR. BOURKE: NO, Sir; no official information has reached Her Majesty's Government on the subject.

  ITALY—GERMANY.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has been received at the Foreign Office as to the report that General Claer, an Aide-de-Camp of Marshal Moltke, has been sent on an official mission to Borne; if so, whether he has any information as to the nature of that mission; and, whether it is a fact that the Italian Government has recently bought 5,000 horses?
  MR. BOURKE: No, Sir, no official information has reached Her Majesty's Government with respect to the mission of the officer in question. With respect to the second part of the Question, I believe the Italian Minister of War has asked the Italian Chamber for a Vote for an additional number of houses; but Her Majesty's Ambassador at Rome, reporting the fact, informs us that the supply of horses now possessed by the Italian Army is much below the peace establishment.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) — CATHOLIC PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state what is the number of Roman Catholic prisoners confined in the several prisons of Scotland, and in how many of such the sacrifice of the mass, attend-
  1662
  ance at which is obligatory on all Catholics, is offered on Sundays?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am unable to give the actual numbers; but I believe a third of the prisoners in Scotland are Roman Catholic, and that about a third of that number are found at the prison at Perth, where there is a Roman Catholic minister, who is paid by the Government, and who holds services, but of what those services consist I cannot say.

  ADMIRALTY COURTS, CORK AND BELFAST.—QUESTION.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Why the Rules for carrying out the operations of the Admiralty Courts in Cork and Belfast, framed by the Lord Chancellor, and laid before the Treasury in the month of May last for approval, have not been put in force and the Courts opened for administering the Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON),in reply, said, the delay was owing to the necessity of making inquiries requisite in order to enable a schedule scale of fees to be fixed, and the basis arranged for the remuneration of the officers. All those difficulties had been overcome, and he hoped the Rules would be issued within the next fortnight.

  INDIA—CHURCH OF ENGLAND MISSIONARIES AND INDIAN BISHOPS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. A. MILLSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to certain resolutions passed at a meeting of the Indian Bishops held at Calcutta on the 8th of March last, to the effect that all the appointments to spiritual functions in their dioceses ought to be made with the recognition of the rights of the Bishops to exercise a veto upon the same; whether the powers thus asserted are within the limits prescribed by stat. 53 Geo. 3 c. 155; and, whether an exercise of authority over the Missionary Clergy in India, on the part of Bishops paid out of Indian revenues and appointed by the Secretary of State, is consistent with the policy hitherto adopted by the Imperial Government of entire abstention from all

    1663
    official interference with the religions of the natives of India?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the Indian Government has invariably abstained from interfering with the religion of the Natives of India, nor does it give to any person acting under it authority to do so. With regard to the exercise of authority by the Bishops over the missionary clergy in India, those missionaries may happen to be clergymen of the Church of England; but in any case they are, in common with all other clergymen, under the provisions of the Letters Patent, subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishops in whose diocese they may happen to be officiating; but no secular assistance or recognition is on that account given by Government to any missionary undertaking. No alteration is proposed or contemplated in the policy hitherto adopted by the Imperial Government, neither have we any official cognizance of the resolutions alluded to by my hon. Friend.

  TURKEY—BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. RYLANDSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there are any Despatches since the 29thday of March from Her Majesty's Consuls in Bosnia and Herzegovina showing what advice they have given to the Turkish authorities of those Provinces with reference to the insurgents; and, if so, whether he will lay them at once upon the Table of the House?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, there are several despatches at the Foreign Office from Her Majesty's Consuls in Bosnia and Herzegovina on the subject of the Question of the hon. Member, and in one of them, dated the 6th of June, Mr. Freeman states that the expedition against the insurgents on the Austro-Croatian frontier had proved unsuccessful, and that the Austrian Government were bound to establish small military posts in the district. The Papers to be presented on the subject are now being prepared.

  POST OFFICE SUNDAY DUTY—SHEFFIELD, &c.—QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Postmaster General, If he will arrange to
  1664
  extend to the Post Office officials of Sheffield and other large towns the same relief from Sunday duty which he has already granted to the postmen of Birmingham?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, it was impossible to answer such a Question off-hand. He was quite willing to give the privilege asked for, but a local inquiry must in each case be instituted; and as some additional expense would be incurred, it would be desirable that the local authority—which in the case of Sheffield would be the Town Council — should first move in the matter.

  TURKEY—ALLEGED OUTRAGES IN ARMENIA.—QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Reports have been received from any British Consul in Asia Minor of outrages alleged to have been committed by regular or irregular troops in the Turkish service upon Christian villagers in Armenia; and, if so, whether he will lay those Reports upon the Table of the House before the Recess?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that our Consul at Erzeroum has reported many cases of disorderly conduct on the part of the Turkish irregular cavalry; also we have heard that a band of Kurdish cavalry, who, it is believed, came from Persia, have committed ravages in the Pashalic of Van. Her Majesty's Representatives both at Constantinople and Teheran have been requested to inform the Governments to which they are accredited, that Her Majesty's Government hope they will take measures to prevent those outrages recurring. The Papers on the subject are being prepared, and will be presented to the House with the others.

  MERCANTILE MARINE — HOLYHEAD HARBOUR—WRECK OF THE STEAMSHIP "EDITH."—QUESTION.
  MR. FRENCHasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, If he can state why the contemplated attempt to raise the steamship "Edith," sunk in Holyhead Harbour since September 1875, has not been carried out; and, if he can inform the House what steps are now being

  1665
  taken to remove this obstruction to navigation?
  MR. E. STANHOPE,in reply, said, that the attempt to raise the wreck of the Edith was made on the 12th of July last, but it unfortunately failed in consequence of the insufficiency of the pumping power to clear the wreck of water. Pumps of greater power had been sent to Holyhead by the contractor, and it was hoped that the work would be satisfactorily resumed in the course of a few days.

  LEGISLATURE OF BARBADOES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is in contemplation to call the Legislature of Barbadoes together at an early day; and, whether he can name the time and also give the reasons for the present delay?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, in the absence of any apparent necessity for the immediate convocation of the Barbadoes Legislature, Lord Carnarvon thought it desirable to postpone the issue of the writs until he had had an opportunity of conferring personally with Captain Strahan, the Governor-in-Chief of the Windward Islands, who is at present in this country. Captain Strahan will be returning to Barbadoes, however, in the course of the autumn, when there will be ample time for the Legislature to be convened for the despatch of such business as it may be necessary to undertake before the close of the year.

  CORONERS (IRELAND) BILL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. FRENCHasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Government have considered the question of the Coroners (Ireland) Bill, which was before this House in 1875; and, if so, whether it is their intention to introduce a Bill dealing with that subject either this or early next Session?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I beg to inform the hon. Gentleman that we have considered the question, but I do not propose to introduce a Bill dealing with it this Session. I fear I cannot either give any promise with regard to the next Session.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY —THE WAR — SIR ARNOLD KEMBALL—DESPATCH OF TROOPS TO GALLIPOLI.

    QUESTION.
    MR. CALLANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have any information as to the truth of the statement in "Vanity Fair" of Saturday last, that
    "The Russian General commanding the army of the Caucasus, now in Armenia, has set a price of 2,000 roubles on General Sir Arnold Kemball's head;"
    and, also, whether, as stated in the "Daily Telegraph" of the 21st, Her Majesty's Government has determined to occupy Gallipoli, and that the troops for this purpose are to be despatched immediately?
    MR. BOURKE: Sir, with regard to the first Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government have no information as to whether there is any truth in the statement to which he has referred. In reference to the second, I understand the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) is about to put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same subject; and therefore it is not necessary for me to answer the Question of the hon. Member.

  HAMMERSMITH BRIDGE AND THE INTERNATIONAL REGATTA.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the forthcoming International Regatta, he will take some precautionary measures in reference to the Hammersmith Bridge?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, that the owners must be held responsible for the safety of the bridge. They had been warned over and over again that the bridge would not bear a great crowd, and he hoped that the warning would be attended to, in view of the approaching regatta.

  ARMY PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the

    1667
    Royal Warrant relating to Army Promotion and Retirement will involve a vote of money in the course of the present Session; and, whether, in consideration of the importance and extent of the subject, and the lateness of the Session, he will specify the day upon which the scheme will be submitted to the consideration of the House, and the opportunities which the Government propose to afford for the discussion of the details of the scheme, and the questions connected with it?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I hope that in a very short time I shall be able to place in the hand of hon. Members a Paper giving the details of this scheme. The hon. Member asks me whether it will involve a Vote of money. Yes, it will involve a Vote of money, and I hope I shall be able to bring it before the House on Monday or Tuesday next.
    MR. TREVELYANwished to know, Whether the Government would, if necessary, give several days for the discussion of the Royal Warrant?
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: The Government will, of course, give as much time as is necessary. I cannot say how many days the hon. Member requires, and therefore I can give him no pledge on the subject.

  ARMY—AUXILIARY FORCES—DRUNKENNESS IN MILITIA REGIMENTS.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYasked the Secretary of State for War, If he would state what is the amount annually derived from fines for drunkenness in militia regiments in Great Britain and Ireland; to what purpose the money is applied, and would there be any objection in future to allow officers in command of regiments to use this money which comes out of the pay of the men for purposes of recreation for the men under their command?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that it was intended to refer the question during the Recess to a Departmental Committee. There was a difficulty about it. The amount raised annually from that source varied very much. In 1870–1 the amount was £230, and in the six following years the amounts respectively were £584, £598, £627, £696, £789, and £676. The total amount now in hand was £4,204. With
  1668
  regard to the power of officers in command to distribute this money there seemed to be this difficulty—that according to what the hon. Member suggested in his Question, the most drunken regiments would get the most.

  RUSSIA AND TURKEY —THE WAR—OCCUPATION OF GALLIPOLI.

    QUESTION.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish, Sir, to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is able to give the House any information respecting a report which has been prevalent during the last two or three days that several transport ships have been prepared for service, and that a considerable number of troops are under orders for immediate embarkation? If so, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he can state what is the destination of those troops, and whether he is able to give any information as to the objects with which they are despatched?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the rumours to which the noble Lord refers as having been current during the last few days are founded on this—that the Government thought it right, in the present unsettled state of the Mediterranean region, to raise the garrison of Malta to its full complement, and for that purpose a number of troops is about to be despatched for that destination. That is the sole answer I can give to the Question of the noble Lord.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—RESOLUTION.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in moving—
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion upon Tuesday, Government Orders having priority, and that Government Orders have priority upon Wednesday,"
  said: Sir, I do not think it can be necessary, after the statement I made a few nights ago, to explain the grounds on which we make this proposal. The House is aware that there is a considerable amount of Business which still remains unfinished, and with regard to much of which it would be very incon-

  1669
  venient to the public that it should not be carried through, and that it should not be completed whilst there is still a fair attendance of hon. Members in this House. I do not know that it is necessary to compare precisely year by year the particular dates when these proposals have been made to the House. There have been occasions when—two years ago, I think—Tuesdays were given to the Government as early as the 11th of July, and Wednesdays as early as the 21st of July. In 1875 Tuesdays and Wednesdays were given on the 27th of July; and last year not until the 7th of August. Therefore, one year is not altogether to be taken as a standard for comparison with another. But I hope that the proposal I have to submit to the House is one which will be acknowledged to be made for the general convenience, and that it is one which will be accepted by the House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion upon Tuesday, Government Orders having priority; and that Government Orders have priority upon Wednesday."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. MONK,in moving an Amendment to omit the latter part of the Motion that gave priority to Government Orders on Wednesdays, said, no doubt the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were unanswerable from a Government point of view; but, on the other hand, he must remind the House that the practice of taking Wednesdays was an innovation on the part of the present Government, and an interference with the rights of private Members which the latter ought to resist. During the preceding Parliament, when the Predecessors of the present Government were in Office, on no occasion, he believed, did the Government ask for Wednesdays in July, except in 1868 when the Prorogation took place in July. On the two occasions mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman when the Government moved for Wednesdays in July, the right hon. Gentleman stated the reasons why he asked for them, and why they were granted in 1874; while the Prime Minister moved that on Wednesday, the 15th of July, the Orders of the Day should be
  1670
  postponed until after the Order for the second reading of the Public Worship Regulation Bill. That was considered a Bill of primary importance, and the Prime Minister stated at the time that he had no wish to interfere with the privileges of private Members, and that he made the Motion in consequence of the Bill having been introduced by a private Member, the Recorder for the City of London. In the year 1875 the Government asked the House to give Wednesday, the 28th of July, for Government Business, and the House did so, in order to proceed with the Agricultural Holdings Bill; but in that year the Estimates were much in arrear. No sufficient reason had been advanced for the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman, nor was it justified by any special circumstance, as it was sought to be on the former occasions referred to. Wednesday was the only day on which private Members had the least chance of having their Bills considered, and it was hard that they should be deprived of that, their sole opportunity of submitting them to the House. That was the case with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and others. A private Member obtained his place by Ballot, and his lot might fall on a Wednesday in July. Why was he to be deprived of his privilege? It was by no means unimportant that the principle of a Bill should be discussed at the fag end of the Session, and a division taken upon its merits. The Government had no doubt met with obstruction in the course of the present Session, to which, however, he had been no party; and it was not right that, because of that obstruction, all private Members should lose their rights and privileges. He begged to move, as an Amendment, the omission of all the words of the Motion after the word "priority," in line 4.
  MR. MELDON,in seconding the Amendment, said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that no special and exceptional cause having been shown for the Motion, it was not right to deprive private Members of their only opportunity of bringing forward the Motions for which—as in his own case—they had obtained days with considerable difficulty. He trusted that the Motion would not take

  1671
  effect, at least so far as next Tuesday and Wednesday were concerned. He had looked through the records, and he found that the earliest day on which it was proposed to deprive private Members of their privileges was on the 27th of July. He must enter his protest against the course that the Government were going to adopt, for they had a whole list of measures which it was utterly impossible for the Government to carry. A Select Committee had just began its operations with a Bill of over 200 clauses, which there was not the slightest idea of passing, and he protested that it was wrong to interfere with the rights of private Members in this way. It would be better to decide not to proceed with these measures at all.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the word "priority," in line 3, to the end of the Question.—(Mr. Monk.)
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he sympathized with his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, whose Congè d'elire Bill was about to receive its congè d'elire by the adoption of the Resolution. But he must explain that he was himself in a similar position, and was in even a worse plight, as his hon. Friend had had an opportunity of pushing his speech down to oppose the Bill, while he had been cut short by the Wednesday practice. He should, however, support the Motion. The matter was very clear, and he was almost sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given dates which convinced nobody. They knew how much profit they gained from the speeches of the hon. Member for Gloucester; but they had to choose between that profit and getting out of town at a reasonable time. He should vote for the getting out of town.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might more properly have asked the House for Tuesdays and Wednesdays for the rest of the Session, if he had previously announced all the Bills which he intended to proceed with. On the Notice Paper of that day there were 35 Government Orders. It could not be the intention of the Government to proceed with all these Government Orders, and have them finished during the rest
  1672
  of the Session. The House, as he had said, therefore might reasonably expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, before asking for the Tuesdays and Wednesdays, would have announced his intention as to the Bills he intended to drop. The present deplorable state of Public Business was very much due to the apparent want of business-like aptitude, or conception, which had been evinced by Her Majesty's Government in the conduct of Business that Session. There were on the Paper that day no fewer than 17 Government Orders of the Day which had passed their second reading. There were a great many of the Government Orders of the Day which were not on the list which also had passed the second reading; and it was because Her Majesty's Government had insisted upon taking second readings of Bills that they never intended or hoped to pass that that deplorable state of Business arose. The time had been wasted in taking the second reading of these 17 Bills, when it might have been profitably occupied in pressing to completion certain useful measures for England, Scotland, and Ireland. Therefore he charged Her Majesty's Government with a very considerable amount of blame for the deplorable state of Public Business. If he turned to the question of Irish Business, he found that the neglect of Irish Business by the Government was most remarkable during that Session, with the exception of the Judicature Bill, which was not required or wanted by the people, and which was in no sense pressing. The Government had given exactly three-quarters of an hour of Government time to Irish measures; and, perhaps, he might include the Sunday Closing question, which was, however, more in the nature of a compromise than anything else. Then, Bills which were really required, and which it was important that Ireland should have, had been entirely neglected. For instance, the Irish Prisons Bill and the Scotch Prisons Bill had not been passed, and that would inflict a great injustice both on Irish and Scotch ratepayers. The Government had promised that the English, Irish, and Scotch Prisons Bills should pass pari passû, but they had entirely ignored the Irish and Scotch Prisons Bills. Then, there was the question of intermediate education in Ireland—a matter of the greatest importance, in which

  1673
  England had inflicted more than the usual amount of injustice to Ireland; it had not been taken up at all, although the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland promised at the commencement of the Session to deal finally with it. They were put off with vague promises with reference to these and other Irish questions of vital importance. As to what the Government would do in future Sessions, if they got time to do it, from his experience and observations of the events of that Session he had been compelled to come to the conclusion that the House was utterly and entirely incapable of legislating for Ireland; and that if the House desired to legislate equally and justly for the Three Kingdoms, that it was utterly unable to do so, because it had not time to do so. He thought that Her Majesty's Government, instead of devoting their energies to depriving hon. Members of Tuesdays and Wednesdays at this period of the Session, had far better turn their attention to some measure as to legislating successfully, for certainly they could not expect the Irish people to go on much longer submitting to an entire deprivation of legislation. It was also very possible that by making alterations in some of the Rules of the House—for instance, by preventing hon. Members from speaking for more than half-an-hour or so, or more than a certain number of times, and by diminishing the time-honoured privileges of minorities— it was possible that a small amount of more Business might be done in the future Sessions than had been done that Session. At the same time, he did not think that such results would be commensurate with the sacrifice of private Members, and after those Members had given up all their privileges, and been subjected to restriction and coercion, it would still be found that no good had been done. Therefore, he would advise Her Majesty's Government to direct their attention to the problem, whether it would not better for them to consider the question of self-government for the Three Kingdoms, whether they called it by the name of local self-government, or national self-government?
  MR. FORSYTHrose to Order. Was the hon. Member in Order in speaking of Home Rule?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the question of local self-government was not under
  1674
  notice, and therefore he must call on the hon. Member for Meath to confine himself to the question before the House.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he certainly did not desire to go into the question of Home Rule, or the government of the Three Kingdoms, but merely wished to say with regard to the breaking up of the legislative functions of that House, that was a matter which would have to be considered, and that the distributing of these functions among smaller bodies was a question worthy of their attention, instead of endeavouring by futile means to meet the difficulties in which they found themselves — difficulties which would be very much increased next Session.
  MR. WHALLEYobjected strongly to the proposal of the Government. Undoubtedly the course adopted in the management of Public Business, brought to a crisis by the present Government, did tend to promote the relieving of the House from a burden which it could not well discharge. It was a deliberate attempt to "burke" the Business of the House, and to frustrate the freedom of speech during the Session. The Session would be remarkable for having wasted its time in passing measures which were not asked for by any important section of the community, and for the House curtailing the privileges of minorities in various ways by hon. Members rising to Order and by count-outs. Then, the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees had a veto, and would not allow hon. Members to go on if, in their view, they were not speaking to the point; but with his own limited ability, in some cases he found it absolutely impossible to adapt his statements and arguments in accordance with the views of any other person whatsoever. Her Majesty's Government also had by all means, direct and indirect, endeavoured to prevent independent Members obtaining full and fair discussion of questions which they deemed it necessary to bring forward. He, for instance, had on three occasions brought forward the question of The Priest in Absolution, and on each occasion he had been counted-out. He thought such a course was unworthy of an Assembly that prided itself on being the first in the world, and composed only of Gentlemen of honour, truth, candour, and sincerity. If he had again to go through the same ordeal, without

  1675
  even the poor reward of a fair discussion of questions which he brought forward, he should either throw up his seat or hold it in abeyance, rather than act as a sort of screen behind which the Government could carry on the Business of the country in an irregular manner. He did hope the House would concede something to the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he had listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), and it did not appear to him that he had successfully met the arguments brought forward by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). The hon. Member had referred to one Bill, but there was another Bill in which he was interested; three times it had passed the second reading, but the hon. Member never succeeded in getting it further. He did not consider there were sufficient reasons for the course the Government had taken. It would be better if the Government would abandon those of their Bills which were in a backward state, instead of asking private Members to give up their rights. If the hon. Member for Gloucester went to a division he would support him.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he believed he was the Member who had most right to complain of the Government, as his Bill for extending the jurisdiction of County Courts was the First Order of the Day on Wednesday, and under ordinary circumstances, but for the Resolution before the House, he would certainly have obtained a hearing. The Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), respecting the dismissal by the Irish Church Commissioners of their solicitor, would have come on to-morrow night at an Evening Sitting, and might have been counted out; and the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk), being behind his own on Wednesday, had little chance of being heard. He realized the situation, and saw there was no alternative but to accept the inevitable. He had taken a great deal of trouble about the Bill under his charge, and he thought he could have made a statement that would have shown a distinct grievance, and pointed out a practical means for its solution. He had been extremely unfortunate that Session, as four or five measures in which he was
  1676
  specially interested had either been withdrawn, or had obtained such a bad place in the Ballot that there was no opportunity of their being heard. The House would see, therefore, that it was reasonable for him to regret the loss of the chance that Wednesday offered him for putting before the country propositions which he was bold enough to think were worthy of consideration. That, however, was simply the personal aspect of the question. The thing that concerned him was, that the Bill he had introduced had received the sanction and the warm support of several influential commercial bodies, and he was more anxious in respect to the disappointment they would feel than he was for himself. He could understand the position of affairs in the House, when persons outside could not fully appreciate the difficulties that beset the course of legislation in that Assembly. It had been customary in all legal reforms to hand them over to the direction of Gentlemen connected with the law. They had the technical knowledge for such discussion, but they were apt to view reforms from a narrow and professional aspect. He was desirous of placing before Parliament a scheme of law reform from the standpoint of a commercial man and a trader. He hoped, however, that, although disappointed this year, he would next Session be more fortunate. The hon. Members who had preceded him had blamed the Ministry exclusively for the position of Public Business. This was scarcely fair. The House was as much to blame as the Government, and the system even more so. All Governments were necessarily and largely trammelled by the forms of the Legislature. He knew of no question pressing more for settlement than the mode of transacting national Business. Hon. Members did not seem sufficiently to realize the fact that the work of the House and its character had changed, and was changing. The machinery they had at their command, on the other hand, was stationary. A few years ago the work of Parliament was practically limited to three things—the mode of levying and expending the national Revenue, the regulation of our intercourse with foreign countries, and the occasional discussion of great Constitutional questions. Now, the sphere of legislation had been widened, and it extended over a vastly more comprehen-

  1677
  sive area. Legislation now descended into all the ramifications of commercial, of social, and even of domestic life. They had covered the country with a whole army of Inspectors, they had taken under their supervision—if not under their direction—the business of shipping, of mining, and of ordinary manufacturing. They had opened out the great work of sanitary control and arrangement, and a comparatively new but still complicated educational machinery. All this was the work of the last 30 or 40 years. These new laws necessarily begot new Departments of the Public Service and enlarged administrative labours. He believed he would be understating the fact when he said that the work of the administrative Departments of the State had quadrupled within this last quarter-of-a-century. Increased administrative work meant increased legislative work. That of itself accounted for the augmentation in the number and character of the measures that every Session came before the House. In addition to that, they had more speaking than they formerly had. It was customary 20 years ago for 80 or 90 Members of the House to speak in a Session. Now, between 300 and 400 out of the 656 took more or less part in the debates. He did not know whether their increased loquacity had produced an increase of wisdom, but certainly it occupied a larger measure of their attention. While they had more talk, they had no more time at their disposal. The House could not really sit more than six months in the year. Hon. Members required time to attend to their private affairs. They could not always live in London. They stood in need, too, of some relaxation, and it was necessary for the Ministry to have the Recess for the preparation of their measures. The facts, therefore, were these —That they had more work, more talk, and no more time. Parliament was a few years ago a large aristocratic debating society. It was now a huge vestry or town council. Its regulations and rules were drawn for a different Assembly from what it now was. They should recognize these facts, and attempt to alter their mode of procedure to meet them. He was only a young Member of the House, and he did not presume to advise in such a delicate question; but it struck him that a good
  1678
  deal of the labour that was thrown on Parliament might be relegated to other bodies in the country, and that the work might be distributed or subdivided. He was opposed to any interference with the rights and privileges of minorities, or with the ordinary rules of debate. They had been the growth of centuries, and they contained the condensed and combined wisdom of many Parliaments. It would be dangerous in the interests of liberty to interfere with them; but he still thought that, while retaining them, the labours of the Legislature might be lessened by such a re-division as he had suggested. That was scarcely, perhaps, the time for an elaborate consideration of the question. It would come up on another occasion, and any lengthened discussion at that moment would only be augmenting the evil they were all complaining of. He contented himself, there-lore, with saying that while he regretted that the state of Public Business rendered it necessary, yet as no alternative was offered, he felt bound, after this protest, to acquiesce in the proposition of the Leader of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthanked the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) for the spirit in which he had addressed the House; and he might say that that was not the first time in the course of his Parliamentary career that the House had seen reason to feel that the presence of the hon. Member was a decided acquisition, and a great advantage to it. He must also acknowledge the great forbearance both the hon. Member and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) with others had shown, and the assistance which they had rendered in carrying on the Business of the House under difficulties; and they had frequently, as on the present occasion, given way in a manner which showed their desire to meet the convenience of the House. He could assure the hon. Members for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) and for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) that it was with great regret the Government had felt themselves compelled to make the proposition which was now under discussion; but there was a good deal of important Business which still remained to be done, and which they were afraid could not be properly transacted if that proposition were not adopted. For instance, the hon. Member for the

  1679
  Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had given Notice of his intention to raise a discussion on the Army Warrant question, which was one of much importance; and there were the South African Bill, the Irish and Scotch Prisons Bills, the County Courts Bill, and one or two other measures which were pressing for decision, and which he believed the Government might get through if assisted by the kindness and business-like powers of hon. Members of that House. It was not from any desire to put aside Business which had been brought forward by private Members, as they were called, that this proposal had been made; but from the real conviction that there was no other way of getting through the public Business which still remained to be transacted. He hoped, under these circumstances, that the hon. Member for Gloucester would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.
  MR. MONKsaid, that after what had just been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would have much pleasure in withdrawing his Amendment.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he would consent to the proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman, although he did not see any solid reason was given for bringing it forward at that time of the year. It would be better, as a way out of the difficulty arising from the press of Business, that Bills should be taken up each Session at the stage in which they had been dropped in the previous Session.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had not been moved by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he had expressed his regret at being obliged to interfere with the convenience of private Members, for these expressions were becoming a stereotyped form of the House. Every year the Leader of the House uttered the same expressions of regret for the sacrifices hon. Members had to make in losing their Bills and all the result of their matured deliberation. [Interruption.] He must protest against the continued conversation carried on in a loud tone; and he would suggest that the conversationalists would suit their own convenience and that of hon. Members who took an interest in the Business of the House by retiring to the Smoking Boom, or some other place
  1680
  where the noise of their conversation would not—by disconcerting a novice like himself—put him to the trouble of unnecessary repetition in his remarks. On looking over the list of Bills put down for Wednesday, he was surprised at the proposition made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such a Bill as the Ancient Monuments Bill, he should have thought, would have received some consideration at the hands of a traditional and historical Party. With all the respect the Chancellor of the Exchequer professed for the rights of private Members, and the weight of public opinion, he was surprised that a Bill which had been brought forward again and again, and which was supported by the cultivated opinion of the country, should be so summarily dismissed. Then, again, a Government anxious to get credit for philanthropy should give consideration to a Bill dealing with the education of our helpless fellow subjects—the deaf, blind, and mute. The Government might have given more facility for these measures than for that upon which they seemed to have set their heart, the confirmation of an act of public perfidy—the annexation of an independent Republic in South Africa. This demand upon Wednesdays was part of that general neglect and studied depreciation with which the Bills of private Members were treated; and this neglect reached its maximum when Irish private Members were concerned. For his own part, he would have been delighted to afford facilities for the discussion of measures brought in by the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), if more attention had been paid to the proposals made by the real Chief Secretary for Ireland (the hon. and learned Member for Limerick). But the Government, anxious for the progress of Business, had contributed to the rejection of every Irish measure brought in which embodied the requirements and satisfied the wishes of the Irish people. The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss some of these Bills when—
  MR. SPEAKERreminded him he was not entitled to discuss the merits of Bills.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would not enter into the merits of the Bills; but he condemned the Government for sacrificing several useful Bills in favour of

  1681
  such a scandalous measure as the South African Bill. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. GOLDSMIDrose to Order. Was the hon. Member in Order in referring to the Bill as a "scandalous measure?"
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already informed the hon. Member that he is not entitled to discuss the merits of the Bills, and I must request him to confine his remarks to the question before the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLresumed, amid continued interruption, and said, he would not refer to the Bill again; but if when the Bill came on for discussion, he used stronger expressions, he would be prepared to justify them. He should be always happy to meet the convenience of Her Majesty's Government, if the Government would enter into some sort of engagement to meet the convenience of hon. Members on that side of the House, but he did not believe in being called upon to indulge in this system of unreciprocated beneficence. Year after year the Government spoke smoothly, and were most prolific of promises, but it was the "same old game" year after year, and all business except that of the Government was sacrificed. There was more and more a tendency to make that House a mere registration machine of the foregone conclusions of the Government. He asked what guarantee had they that there would be any improvement; and that next Session the right hon. Gentleman—unless he was translated to a higher place—would not come down again to the House and ask it to assist the Government out of their perennial scrape? There was not the slightest indication of any intention to amend. The Government were fairly responsible for wasting the time of the House. Night after night the dinner hours were spent in what was called keeping the ball rolling—a proceeding all very well in the good old times when the House of Commons was said to be the best club in London ["Question!"], but that was a reputation that would scarcely suffice for a great legislative Assembly of the present, for they had come to another time of day when the House of Commons must not only be the best club in London, but must seek to be the best office and workshop in London—
  MR. C. B. DENISONrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman was confining himself, in ac-
  1682
  cordance with the previous ruling from the Chair, to the question before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of Order; but I certainly think he is trying very severely the forbearance of the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought some of his expressions had been misunderstood. He was merely endeavouring to show that the Government were not entitled to forbearance, particularly as they had given no promise that there would be the slightest amendment in their conduct for the future, or that they would cease to inflict on the House useless and irritating discussions. It would be easy to give instances in which Members of the Government had used expressions calculated to wound in the deepest sense the most sacred convictions of Members of the House. He would say no more; but for his own part, he should deem it to be his duty to continue to subject these measures to as calm, as independent, and as deliberate criticism as if hon. Members were not in a hurry to repair to the shooting grounds throughout the country.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Sir, I think the scene just presented to the House is one of the most painful, and I may say, degrading, to its character that I ever witnessed, while the modest and self-constituted champion of private Members who has just sat down made the remarks we have just listened to. I do not rise to appeal to the feelings of the hon. Member, or of those who act with him; but I think I am entitled to say that as you, Sir, have appealed to his forbearance without effect, the scene we have just witnessed shows how stubborn and insensible he and others have been to the feeling by which, generally speaking, hon. Gentlemen in this House are governed.
  MR. PARNELL: I rise to Order, Sir. [Cries of "Spoke!"] I wish to know, whether the hon. Member who has just spoken is entitled to say that we have exhibited an utter absence and shown an utter insensibility to the feelings of Gentlemen? I have to call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the words, which he should not have dared to have used either to me or to any hon. Member of the House of Commons.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire by any expression

  1683
  of which he made use intended to imply that any hon. Member of this House was not actuated by the feelings of a Gentleman that expression should be withdrawn. I did not, however, gather that such was his meaning.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Sir, the words I used or intended to use were those, that we have repeated instances of—[Cries of " Withdraw" and" Order!"]—perhaps hon. Members will allow me to state to the House what words I did use, and then it will be for the House to say whether they are in accordance with the language prevalent amongst Gentlemen in the House or not. The words, Sir, I used, or intended to use on this occasion, were—"We have repeated instances of the stubborn insensibility of certain hon. Members of that side of the House, and the sentiments by which Gentlemen in this House have hitherto been almost invariably actuated." [Loud cheers.] I believe, Sir, that I am right in saying that the House thoroughly endorsed that opinion. Sir, the course which has been adopted has been one of something more than obstruction. It has been a course of attempted dictation to this House. Sir, the patience of this House is great, and its long suffering is well known; but I will venture, Sir, having been in this House some little time longer than the hon. Member for Dungarvan, to give him some warning as to the feeling likely to be engendered in the course of any hon. Member of the House who attempts to bully the House of Commons. In that event, the House of Commons knows how to protect itself against being bullied.
  MR. O'DONNELLrose to Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire is in possession of the House, and entitled to continue his speech until he has concluded it. If, at its conclusion, the hon. Member for Dungarvan thinks he has been misrepresented no doubt the House will listen to any explanation.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I was only going to say, Sir, that those hon. Gentlemen may rest assured, if they persist in a course which outrages the general sentiment and feelings of this House that ere long swift retribution will await them, and they will regret what they have done.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will be impossible
  1684
  for me, in view of the frequency with which I have felt it my duty to act with hon. Members who have been subjected to the censure of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), to remain silent. Now, I quite concur in your statement that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) severely tested the forbearance of this House; but that arose from the fact that the majority of this House entertain opinions in regard to our country that are in direct conflict with the opinions entertained by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and if he has tested the forbearance of the House of Commons, I wish to tell the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire that the Party of which he boasts himself to be a Member has for centuries tested the forbearance of the Irish nation, more particularly within the last four Sessions of the present Parliament, and the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, prominent amongst the number, has used his power in this House for the purpose of thwarting and disregarding the wishes of the Irish nation. When private Members are called upon at a certain stage in the Session to withdraw measures, or to concede days for the convenience of the Government, it appears to me very fit proper action to call attention to these important facts. We are told we are sent here by the majority of the electors and non-electors of Ireland, and that we have proposed measures which are in conflict with gentlemanly feeling, and that for that reason we have not succeeded in gaining the magnificent approval of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire. This discussion has given rise to very important considerations not touched upon by the hon. Member, to which I shall now refer. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), whose opinion receives great consideration in this House, suggested that during the Recess, in view of the inconvenience which arises at this time, the Government should consider the propriety of fixing a Rule whereby Bills might be taken up at the stage at which they were dropped in the preceding Session. I wish to point out that the adoption of such a Rule would be attended with very great inconvenience. Cases have occurred in which the second reading of a Bill has been carried without correct information, and it would be a mistake to

  1685
  proceed with, legislation on the assumption that the vote of the House in the previous Session was the result of ample consideration. We are asked now, by the Motion before the House, to sacrifice the Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and if that is done, without an emphatic protest, we shall witness the same thing year after year. At the beginning of the Session important measures are announced in the Queen's Speech, and at the close of the Session the Government are obliged to acknowledge their inability to pass them. The Obstructive Party will be made the scapegoat this Session, but some other Party may be made the scapegoat another time. They had lately seen that the right hon. Member for Greenwich, and those who agreed with him on Eastern affairs, were stigmatized as an unscrupulous and unpatriotic faction, therefore the Government would see that they could not make a few Irish Members the scapegoat for the inefficiency of the system if they took no steps to substitute one more efficient.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I will rise, Sir, as an Irish Member, to repudiate the attempt made by the hon. Member who has just spoken (Mr. O'Connor Power), and the hon. Member for Meath, and a few hon. Members below the Gangway, to speak on the part of the Irish people. Certainly, with every word that fell from the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) I cordially concur. But what I have particularly to refer to is this—the adroit attempt by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to lead the House and the country to believe that his conduct and the conduct of a little party of Irish Members meets only with the disapproval of English Members on both sides of the House. Sir, their conduct has been repudiated by the mass of the Irish Party, and I wish to point out that that conduct has been reprobated, I may say denounced, by one who has been recognized as the Leader of the Irish people, the hon. and learned Member for Limerick.
  MR. GRAYhere rose, but gave way to
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,who said: I would earnestly request the House to consider for a moment what the position is. Do let us come to a decision on the question at once. There really has been language
  1686
  held in the course of the last half-hour which I think all persons on consideration will feel is language which is not becoming the dignity of the House of Commons, and I do trust that we shall be allowed to proceed to a decision on the Motion which has been submitted to the consideration of the House in a manner which is consistent with ordinary habits of Members of Parliament, and that we shall endeavour to decide upon the question, which, after all, is submitted not for the convenience, as supposed, of the Government, but for the general convenience of the House.
  MR. GRAY: I merely rise to say that it is with a feeling of pain and humiliation I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue). I felt humiliated as a Member of this House, and as an Irishman, that any hon. Member of this House should have been found to stand up in his place and endorse the language of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). You have decided, Sir, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was within his right in taking the course he did. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire may be an admirable judge of what becomes a Gentleman; but I submit that you are the judge of what becomes a Member of this House. I am not disposed to yield to the judgment of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, either as to what becomes a Gentleman, or an hon. Member of this House. I deny that the hon. Member for Tralee, in endorsing the language of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, represents any Party or person either in or out of the House but himself; and I hold that the language and conduct of any hon. Member on this side of the House to-day bears favourable comparison with the hon. Member that of for Mid-Lincolnshire.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked permission to say a word. [Cries of "No!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Dungarvan thinks he has been misrepresented by the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire he is entitled to make a personal explanation. He is not entitled to make a second speech on the question before the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid he was willing to put the best construction on the language of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and that he

  1687
  did not feel called upon either to make any explanation, or to demand one.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that although he felt strongly on Irish questions, he had studiously avoided voting with what was called the Obstructive Party in that House, and that he wholly disapproved the policy they had pursued on Friday, Saturday, and that day. He felt, how ever, that he would be humiliated if he did not rise to express his reprobation of the language of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) — language which the Forms of the House did not permit him to stigmatize properly. As the junior Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) had said, the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire might consider himself a fit judge of what was gentlemanly conduct; but with all due respect to him, he (Mr. Callan) must say, although he had hitherto always looked upon the hon. Gentleman as a manly and courageous man, he could not hereafter lay claim to manliness, straightforwardness, or courage. The hon. Member should ere this have withdrawn— ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that it is not proper to impute want of straightforwardness or courage to any hon. Member.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would impute neither courage, nor its reverse to the hon. Member. He would not offer any opinion at all. But the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire had charged a Party there with conduct unbecoming Gentlemen, and he should be called upon to withdraw.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must tell the hon. Member that if the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire had used the language which he imputes to him, it would have been my duty to have interposed at the time, and, having been appealed to, I did interpose.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It may save the hon. Member some trouble if I say that I did not use the language attributed to me.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was very glad to learn that the hon. Member did not; but he did make use of language to which the attention of the Chair was not directed, and which, in his (Mr. Callan's) opinion, was unbecoming a Member of that House. He used the word "bully." Well, it seemed to him that the hon. Member's manner towards hon. Members on that side of the House
  1688
  partook far more of the character of bullying than either that of the hon. Members for Meath or Dungarvan.
  The Question, "That the said Amendment be withdrawn" being challenged,
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 386; Noes 15: Majority 371.—(Div. List, No. 244.)
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 321; Noes 13: Majority 308.—(Div. List, No. 245.)
  Resolved, That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion upon Tuesday, Government Orders having priority; and that Government Orders have priority upon Wednesday.

  CONTROLLER OF THE STATIONERY OFFICE—APPOINTMENT OF MR. T. D. PIGOTT.—RESCINDING OF RESOLUTION, 16TH JULY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the appointment to the office of Controller of the Stationery Office."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. GOLDSMIDthought some explanation ought to be given of this Motion. He saw no reason, because certain information had not been given to a Minister of the Crown who was called upon to reply to a certain Motion, that the usual course of procedure should be departed from. The House of Commons had been misled through not receiving that information, and some substantial explanation ought to be vouchsafed for proceeding with this Motion in order to whitewash the course they had taken respecting an exercise of patronage by the Prime Minister. In his opinion it would be much better to leave the matter alone, and proceed with the Business which legitimately came before them. At all events, he, for one, should object to the Motion.
  MR. RYLANDSagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester. He had seen the difficulties of the Government from the pressure of Business that Session, so much so that he had been voting with them, and therefore he thought they should not waste the time of the House in discussing a trumpery

  1689
  Motion like that, for which there was no justification. The subject had been brought before the House; a reply had been made in "another place," and he thought it was not desirable that they should again occupy several hours on the matter.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the reason for the Motion was stated by himself in the House on Friday last. The House had placed on its Journals last week a Resolution of a very marked character, being a censure upon the Government, and especially upon the Prime Minister, in respect of a certain appointment. He presumed there could hardly be found an instance in which such a Resolution as that had been adopted and not acted upon. But the Prime Minister, with the full consent and approval of his Colleagues, thought it was a case in which he ought not to accept the resignation of the gentleman whose appointment was thus censured. That being the case, the House was in this position—it had a Resolution on its Votes of a serious and important character upon which no action had been taken, and which was apparently set aside by the Government. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it right to state these matters to the House, and it certainly appeared to him to be right and due to the Government and the House itself, that there should be an opportunity given to the House of expressing their satisfaction or, as it might be, dissatisfaction with the course which the Government and the Prime Minister had taken with respect to the Resolution of the 16th of July. He would not enter upon the question itself, or how the Resolution came to be passed; that he stated upon Friday last, and it would not be desirable to enter upon it at greater length now. But the House would feel, not only in reference to the Prime Minister, considering his position in this country—and his position ought not to be indifferent to the House—but also with reference to the position of the House itself, it was impossible that such a matter as this could be kept longer in abeyance. Therefore he thought, as the Motion was of an unusual character, as being made under unusual circumstances, the Orders of the Day should be postponed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the appointment to the office of Controller of the Stationery Office.— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  On the Motion of Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT, Resolution [16th July] read as follows:—
  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."
  SIR WALTER B. BARTELLOTrose to propose the following Motion:—
  "That this House, while most anxious to maintain the usefulness and influence of its Select Committees, and to encourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State, after hearing the further explanations concerning the recent appointment of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, withdraws the censure conveyed in the said Resolution."
  The hon. and gallant Baronet said, he thought no apology would be needed from him for introducing the Motion. The remarks which had just been made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had clearly shown to all those who had considered the question fairly, that some notice should be taken, or some Resolution should be passed by the House, particularly with regard to the action which had been taken by the Prime Minister with reference to the Resolution which was passed on the 16th of July, and he felt perfectly assured that in addressing the House on that rather difficult and grave subject he should have its kind attention in endeavouring to explain, as far as he was able, the reasons which had induced him to bring the Motion forward. In his opinion, that Resolution was passed on Monday last, mainly because certain statements were made which described the appointment to the Controllership of the Stationery Department as a gross job. He believed if those statements had not been made and believed in, no adverse Resolution would have been carried by the House. A most important statement, however, had been made on Thursday, in "another place," to which he would not further refer than simply to say that many hon. Members

  1691
  of this House were present and heard it, and he believed that many who had voted in the majority for the Resolution of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Holms) had publicly and deliberately declared that their opinion had been changed by the statement then made. He thought he might venture to say that if his noble Friend had been sitting in that House as of yore, and had made that statement, instead of the Resolution being carried by a majority, there would have been a large majority in favour of the noble Lord and of the Government, and of the appointment. On Friday last his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and made a full and clear explanation of all the circumstances of the case, and with that characteristic frankness and truthfulness which always distinguished him, and which made him so respected in the House, he at once admitted that he had failed on Monday last to state all the circumstances bearing on the appointment, with which, as he said, he ought to have made himself acquainted. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) knew his right hon. Friend would forgive him when he said he believed that it was mainly due to that statement being made without sufficient explanation of all the circumstances that the Resolution was carried. He did not blame his right hon. Friend, for he did not see how he could have been prepared to make such an explanation, as he could not have expected an attack such as had been made by the hon. Member for Hackney, neither could he have come prepared to answer things which really had no foundation in fact. And though he was persuaded that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney believed that what he stated was actually the fact, yet the statements so made were of that peculiar character that unless his right hon. Friend had gone into minute details with the Prime Minister, he could not have arrived at them. That being the case, he thought it would be right that the House should have an opportunity— and he thought he was not wrong in his opinion that it had a desire to have that opportunity—of re-considering and of stating distinctly, aye or no, whether it did or did not, believe that the Prime Minister had exercised a wise discretion in the appointment he had made. He would now turn to the hon. Member for Hackney and the Committee over which he
  1692
  presided in 1873 and 1874. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was a Member of that Committee, and he might appeal to his hon. Friend whether it had not endeavoured to sift to the bottom the difficult and delicate questions which were brought before it. The Committee sat for 36 days in the two Sessions, and examined 92 witnesses, and he must say a more fair and impartial Chairman never presided over a Committee. His hon. Friend endeavoured by every means in his power to extract what was useful from the witnesses, and to place it on record for the benefit of this House and the country. But he must say, before his hon. Friend, who had shown himself to be so careful a man, brought such a charge against the Government, and especially against the Prime Minister, he ought to the utmost of his ability to have sifted it to the very bottom. The statements had no doubt been fairly made; but he ventured to think that they ought never to have been made by any man in that House, unless he was sure they were absolutely correct. And now a word as to Mr. Greg, who had lately resigned the office of Controller of the Stationery Department. His hon. Friend knew very well that the whole of that gentleman's case was most carefully considered, and that in framing the Report certain expressions which were likely to give pain to Mr. Greg were objected to. Knowing the difficulties in the Department and the calls that were made upon it by the other Departments not responsible to it for any extravagance they indulged in, he was one of those who endeavoured to cut out anything that might wound the feelings of that gentleman, for he did not think it fair that anything should go forth to the public in the Report which might damage an old public servant. No one in that House would deny that a grave censure was passed on Her Majesty's Government, and especially on the Prime Minister, by the Resolution which the hon. Member for Hackney had carried. The first accusation contained in the Resolution was that this appointment damaged the usefulness of Select Committees. When his hon. Friend made that broad and bold statement, he did not go carefully into what had been done by the present Government, or consider whether alterations had or had not been made in the Department, His hon. Friend

  1693
  said it was quite true that £45,000 had been saved in the Department during the last year, but that it was owing entirely to the peculiar knowledge of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). Now, the Secretary to the Treasury, as everyone knew, was a man of great ability, and when he turned his attention to anything of that kind, and brought his practical knowledge to bear, there was no one who could do so much. But it was not his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury who did that work; it was his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), who was so often seen with lynx eye outside that door, which many Members about this time tried to evade and avoid. But in many instances his hon. Friend was too sharp for those persons, and in this instance also he was too sharp for those with whom he had to do, so he saved £45,000—indeed, he believed the amount saved, the etceteras included, would be found yet to be something like £65,000. When the Government had most carefully considered the Resolutions of the Select Committee in order to give them practical effect, he failed to see how it could damage the influence of Select Committees. Then it was said this appointment would diminish the interest and zeal of servants in the public Departments. But who was the first man who had attempted to diminish the interest and zeal of our public servants? His hon. Friend, who actually proposed not only to go outside the Stationery Office, but outside all the other offices of the State in order to find a man to put at the head of this Department. If such a proceeding were for the benefit of the Service, he should not say a word against it; but the question was, would it be so? In such a case it had been well said by the Prime Minister that the only person from outside that could be found would be "either one who had retired from business, or from whom business had retired." They all knew the kind of men who would come forward. And if such a man had been taken, it was not easy to see how that would add to the zeal and efficiency of the public servants of this country. Then it might be asked, why not take one from within the Department. Now, if there was one thing which his hon. Friend wished, it was that economy should be carried
  1694
  out in the Office. But anyone of any experience must know how difficult it was, if a man, no matter how able, had been brought up in a particular school, to eradicate the principles in which he had been trained. Therefore, without saying anything against heads in the Office—in fact, they deserved the highest credit—it would have been unwise to place any men within it at its head. The Committee said the Office should have at its head a man of general intelligence and ability. The recommendations of the Committee were not disregarded, and the appointment of a particular person, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney, was not, and could not be, in accordance, as the hon. Gentleman said and believed, with the general interest of the country. The object and intention of the Report was that the most efficient and best man that could be found in the Service should be appointed to the office of Controller of the Stationery Department. When they had got an Office of that kind, where there were many departments, they required a man for its head who could bring together all the separate departments, and had power and will enough to control the whole. The Committee further recommended—
  "That when a vacancy occurred, provision should be made for uniting the control of the Stationery department with the management of The Gazette by the appointment of a man possessing the requisite knowledge of stationery and printing."
  He was bound to say the Committee did arrive at that conclusion, perhaps unanimously; but was there a man in the House or in the country who, looking at all the circumstances of this case, would say that the recommendation of that or any Committee, considering how these Committees were formed, should be treated as a direct order to the Prime Minister, who alone was responsible for appointments of this kind? Were they to say that a responsible Government, and especially the head of it, must take for their guidance all the recommendations of a Select Committee. He should like to know what answer the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would have made had such a doctrine been applied to them? Was this appointment well-considered or was it not? What was the course which was taken in regard to it by the Prime Minister? He had

  1695
  heard it said that an appointment of this kind should have been given to the best man in the Civil Service. That was most certainly done. He had a letter stating the fact, and that the appointment was declined. It might be that the emolument was not so great as was wished, but the fact remained. The appointment was not made hastily, and it was offered to the best man that could be found? What took place after that? Six names, after very careful sifting, were placed before the Prime Minister. ["Name, name! By whom?"] Why should he say by whom? He said six names were placed before the Prime Minister. [Mr. MACDONALD: By whom? If the hon. Member for Stafford denied that, let him get up in his place and say so. He was not going to say by whom. Why should he? Things had come to a new pass if the hon. Member for Stafford considered himself entitled to know whom the Prime Minister was to consult on all occasions. Six names were placed before the Prime Minister—two were from the War Office, one from the Treasury, one from the Board of Trade, one from the Board of Works, and another from the Geological Survey. ["Name!"] He would not give their names. Naturally the Prime Minister had a great liking to the Treasury, and would feel disposed to appoint a Treasury man; but, after mature and due deliberation, he appointed Mr. Pigott as a fit and proper person to be at the head of the Stationery Department. That gentleman had for 17 years served his country to great advantage, and distinguished himself in the War Office and various other positions where he had been placed. Was that a job? He had been surprised to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) say it was a gross job, although he ventured to say he knew nothing of the circumstances of the case. He fired his shot; but, as usual, it fell very far short of the mark. The hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams) had also called it a gross job. He recollected very well the statement made by that hon. and learned Member with regard to another so-called job—the appointment of the Official Referees. He got up in his place and defended that appointment; but now, careful and anxious as he was to get at what was absolutely right and true, he arrived at
  1696
  the conclusion that this was a gross job without knowing the real facts of the case. The hon. Member for Hackney said in his statement that Mr. Pigott was the son of a former vicar of Hughenden, who was a great friend of Lord Beaconsfield.
  MR. J. HOLMS: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to explain. I did not say that he was a son of a former vicar of Hughenden, a great friend of the Prime Minister, because I did not know that fact myself; but that he was simply a friend.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was in the recollection of the House; but he thought the statement of the hon. Member was that the former vicar was a friend and political supporter of the Prime Minister. But it had been distinctly stated that Mr. Pigott's father voted against the Prime Minister when Mr. Disraeli stood for the county of Bucks. That was the absolute recollection of the Prime Minister, and it was confirmed by a statement made by one of the Pigott family. He was very anxious that on this point he should be clearly understood. Hon. Members could not always say who had and who had not voted for them. But the Prime Minister had done all he could do; he had sent down to where the records were usually kept, and endeavoured to ascertain whether or not the father of Mr. Pigott had voted against him; but he found all the records had been destroyed. [Ironical cheers from the Opposition.] What more could a man do? [Renewed cheers.] He was glad to hear those cheers, for they meant either that the statement was absolutely correct, or that the words of the Prime Minister were not taue. In any case a man had a right to vote as he pleased, and it would be very unfair to condemn a man in high position for an appointment of the kind merely because a man might or might not have voted for him. What had been done was all that could be expected of a man in the Prime Minister's position. But very curiously a letter had been sent to him written by a cousin of this vicar of Hughenden, also a clergyman, 83 years of age, living now in Lancashire; but who lived at the time referred to in the county of Bucks. He stated that the relations between the vicar and the Prime Minister were by no means those which had been represented by the hon.

  1697
  Member for Hackney. What did he say? He said that "some time after Mr. Disraeli came to his property I know the old parson and the new squire did not like each other at all." He thought that was pretty conclusive proof that the relations were not of that friendly character which had been pointed out by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. He hoped he had succeeded in showing that the recommendations of the Select Committee were not disregarded; that the appointment was honestly and conscientiously made after the most due, careful, and deliberate consideration; and that the person appointed would do credit to the position in which he was placed. He was told by a Friend sitting behind him that a clerk who had retired from the Public Service on a pension had said that if ever there was a man who deserved promotion it was Mr. Pigott, who had always been appealed to for counsel and advice when a difficulty arose in his own Department. From the Division List he observed that the occupants of the front bench opposite had voted for the Motion of Censure. He did not complain in the least of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), with the information he had before him; but there was a Colleague of his, the hon. Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), whose illness he deeply regretted, who had been in the War Office and knew the worth of Mr. Pigott. When he remembered two appointments that were made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1872 that were, perhaps, within the letter, though against the spirit, of an Act of Parliament—["No, no!" "Yes, yes!" and "Question!"]—when he remembered how the right hon. Member for Greenwich, when he failed to carry the Abolition of Purchase in the Army, resorted to the Royal Prerogative—[Cries of "Question!"] The hon. and learned Member for Oxford called "Question!"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I will ask your decision upon the point. I wish to ask, whether it is competent on this question to discuss the subject of Army Purchase and the Royal Warrant?
  MR. SPEAKER: The observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman are not altogether out of Order; but, at the
  1698
  same time, it seems to me tha the is wandering from the subject.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he submitted absolutely to the decision of the Chair; but thought he was not wandering from the question in speaking of the responsibility of Ministers who had made such appointments when they voted against the Prime Minister in this matter. He was delighted when he read the remarks made in "another place," in a far more generous spirit, by those noble Peers who knew from experience the worth of Mr. Pigott, and one of whom (Lord Penzance) described him as most intelligent, while others used equally complimentary expressions. When any hon. Gentleman in that House used language which was considered too strong for Parliamentary usage he immediately retracted it; and was that House, as a Body which professed to be the first Assembly of Gentlemen in the world, going to act in a different spirit. They remembered what the Prime Minister was in that House; how for 25 years, under every difficulty that could be placed in his way, he had, with great advantage to the House, led the Conservative Party; how, when in a minority, he had gained the respect and esteem of all by his courtesy, and, when in a majority, by his consideration; of one thing he was sure, whatever might be the opinions of hon. Members, there was one thing they would never do, and that was to allow the Prime Minister to remain under a suspicion that was not justified. It was because he felt that the Vote of Censure passed upon the Prime Minister and the Government was not deserved that he moved the Resolution which stood in his name.
  MR. J. R. YORKE,in seconding the Motion, said, it did appear last week that a formidable indictment had been laid against the Prime Minister, and it was suggested, by facts and inferences, that he had not only disregarded the decision of a Select Committee, but that he had been influenced by considerations of personal friendship in appointing to an important office a man without special qualifications. To the astonishment of many hon. Members on that side of the House, little or no defence appeared to be offered from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer simply said it was useful to introduce a fresh man into an

  1699
  office, and the Secretary for War paid a general tribute to Mr. Pigott's worth in the War Office, and believed he would equally distinguish himself in the higher position to which he had been promoted. In those circumstances he (Mr. J. R. Yorke) and others felt that there were only two courses open to them—either to walk out of the House, or else to vote adversely to the Government. He had always a great dislike to the former course, for he felt that if you had heard a case stated, and had listened to the defence, it was your duty to give a verdict on the evidence, and it was moral cowardice to avoid doing so. He therefore took the extreme course of voting for a censure on the Minister at the head of the Government. A day or two afterwards the Prime Minister made a statement which put a totally different aspect upon the matter. Not only had the noble Lord considered the recommendations of the Select Committee, but he had made exhaustive efforts to give effect to them, and he found it impossible to do so. He had, further, consulted the heads of Departments, who supplied him with the names of six gentlemen competent to discharge the duties. The gravamen of the charge was that he had appointed not merely a personal friend, but the son of a political supporter; and, although no authentic records were producible to show whether Mr. Pigott did 30 years ago vote one way or the other, he was informed that Mr. Pigott was at the time engaged in litigation with the Prime Minister, while the Pigott family now believed he voted against the Prime Minister, and at any rate was not on speaking terms with him. The vote, however, was a matter of infinitesimal importance; the main fact was that at no period during the 30 years had there been any friendly relations between the family and the Prime Minister; it was not alleged that the son had done the Prime Minister any service; and there was not the shadow of a ground for the allegation that private interest had anything to do with the appointment. The Prime Minister's statement appeared to him so conclusive that he did not hesitate to second the Motion for a reversal of the Vote of the House. He did not consider the House was responsible for the Vote given the other evening, inasmuch as his, and many other hon. Members' votes constituting
  1700
  it had been given under an entire misapprehension, arising from the fact that whether by the insouciance of the Prime Minister, or by a misplaced confidence in respect of his position in the House of Commons, the facts of the case had not been freely communicated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that he was not in a position to meet the gravamen of the charge against him. The Treasury Bench were responsible for putting the House, and especially their more candid supporters on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, who had felt compelled to vote against them, in a false and difficult position. He comforted himself with the reflection that, although some unmerited pain must have been given to the Prime Minister and to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), who discharged his duties so courteously, yet that the Vote of Censure would not be so unsatisfactory in its result. It would enable the Prime Minister to give a conspicuous refutation to the statement that he was from physical causes incapacitated from taking the part he had hitherto filled in defending his policy in one or the other House of Parliament. What would have happened if the eight Conservative Members had not voted as they had done? The Prime Minister would not have had the opportunity of giving his explanation, and this appointment would have gone down to all posterity as one of the great scandals of the Conservative Party, worthy to be paired with the Ewelme and Collier scandals, and would have been used to point the moral that neither Party was immaculate in these transactions. This Vote of the House, given upon such a knowledge as it had at the moment, would be a caution to every future Minister that no position, however lofty, and no position, however distinguished, would emancipate him from the duty of defending on its merits any appointment which he might make for the Public Service. More than this, he thought that what had happened would not be without a salutary effect upon the fortunes of the Conservative Party. He had heard it said that they were too apt to come down and give their brute votes at the dictation of a Minister. That was, no doubt, a frequent and constant allegation; but it could not be said again when the Conservative Party had carried by a majority

  1701
  a vote which showed that it was not in the power of any Minister to carry the House of Commons in his pocket If this incident had no other good effect, it would, at any rate, be the means of vindicating the independence of the Conservative Party, and would prove that such allegations were altogether without foundation. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had once made the bad joke that the Conservative Party were so much given to acting en bloc, that they might be regarded as the "blockheaded party." The Conservative Party on Monday in last week certainly did not vote en bloc, and showed that they could be as independent as hon. Members opposite. He trusted this incident would now shortly terminate. The Prime Minister's defence had been overwhelming and crushing, and he hoped the House of Commons would by an overwhelming majority, not only relieve the Prime Minister from any censure as to the course he had taken, but declare that practically he had no other alternative than to do as he had done.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, while most anxious to maintain the usefulness and influence of its Select Committees, and to encourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State, after hearing the further explanations concerning the recent appointment of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, withdraws the censure conveyed in the said Resolution."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
  MR. J. HOLMSsaid, he deemed it his duty to lose not a moment in rising after the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had been proposed and seconded. His hon. and gallant Friend had submitted that Motion with great fairness, and he acknowledged the kind expression he had used with regard to himself in connection with the Committee of which his hon. and gallant Friend was a very valuable Member. The House must feel that they were in a very peculiar position. The Motion was nothing more nor less than the outcome of an explanation made "elsewhere" on Thursday last. The House was, in fact, in invited to displace the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer made here on last Monday by the explanation of the Prime Minister last Thursday. It
  1702
  would be his business to compare the statement with the explanation; but before he did so, he frankly accepted the opinion given by his hon. and gallant Friend when he said that a Member should be very careful of any statement he made in that House. A Member should make no statement unless he had good and sound foundation for it; but when a Member had information of that solid kind to convey, it was his business—it was his imperative duty—if he thought it for the good of the country, boldly and openly to state it in that House. On the other hand, it was equally the duty of a Government on all occasions to give the fullest, the most complete, and ample information in its power. If new light could be thrown upon any matter, it should be advanced; but when they were asked to accept one statement which displaced another, they were in a position which demanded very careful consideration. He thought that as plenty of time was given to prepare anything that could be urged in reference to the appointment in question—the Notice having been given on the 18th of June—the House was entitled to more information than it had received from the Government when the Motion was before the House. But he would show that the difficult and he thought humiliating position in which they were placed arose from the fact that there seemed to have been a great want of frank intercourse between Members of the Government. Before he compared the statement of Monday with the explanation of Thursday, he desired to give the House an instance of the want of that full information which Members of Her Majesty's Government seemed to have had. On Thursday, in "another place," when the Prime Minister commenced his explanation, he informed the House of that which was scarcely correct. The noble Lord said—
  "The immediate question before us arose in this manner. There was about the time when the present Government was formed—now more than three years ago—one of the Departments of the State which was not deemed to be administered in a manner entirely satisfactory to the public. A Committee was appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the general state and conduct of that Department."
  Now, these words would lead one to believe that this Committee was appointed

  1703
  for the sole purpose of inquiring into the condition of the Stationery Department, and had been appointed under the auspices of the present Government. The truth was that it was appointed at the commencement of 1873, when the late Government were in power.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMrose to Order. Was it, he asked, competent to the hon. Member to quote from speeches made in the course of a debate in the other House, in replying to a speech made in this House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered that question, which referred no doubt to a very valuable Rule of the House which ought to be strictly enforced, he would remind his hon. Friend the Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Wyndham) that it was stated the other day, when Notice of the present Motion was given, that it was desirable as great latitude as possible should be afforded in its discussion. He was anxious to state that on behalf of his noble Friend, Lord Beaconsfield, because it would be unsatisfactory to him if, under a technical rule—however good and important it might be—any part of which the House should be in possession upon the question before it should be shut out.
  MR. SPEAKERobserved that, strictly speaking, having regard to the Rule to which reference had been made, the hon. Member was not in Order. The Resolution before the House, however, referred to further explanation, and reference to that explanation could not be avoided.
  MR. J. HOLMSwent on to say that the Committee in question was appointed for the purpose of inquiring into not one, but several Departments of State. It was re-appointed in 1874 to continue its work and make its Report, and it made its Report which took a wide survey of several Departments and not of one only. But he would come at once to what concerned himself—the personal part of the question. He had been asked to explain why he used certain words in that House, and that he would most frankly do. It was perfectly true that he stated as a fact that the gentleman in question who had been appointed to the post of Controller of the Stationery Department was a junior clerk in the War Office;
  1704
  that he was one of a list of 101; that he was 69th on that list, and that he was receiving £300 or £400 a-year. But he said also that he was afraid there was something behind the appointment. Furthermore, he said it was understood that Mr. Pigott was the son of a late vicar of Hughenden, who, with his family, had rendered valuable services to the Prime Minister in the county of Buckingham, which he had so long and so creditably represented. What he intended to convey by this statement was that the Pigott family was one of considerable influence in the county. [Murmurs.] He (Mr. Holms) had no business to make any such statement unless he felt that it was well founded. But although it was rumoured in that House and out of it, and in all the newspapers, that Mr. Pigott was the son of the late vicar of Hughenden, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the matter was brought forward, was quite prepared to accept the statement to that effect, he did not think that mere rumour would have been sufficient ground for a Member to make such a statement to the House. He entertained a higher opinion of the kind of information which was essential to the House in any case of this kind, and he took care that what he stated could be properly supported. He therefore obtained direct and authoritative information from Buckinghamshire on the subject only the other day. This information was contained in a letter dated the 7th of July, which stated that Mr. Pigott's father had been vicar of Hughenden, who had been dead for some years, that the family was an old family, that the eldest branch of the family now lived at so-and-so, that Mr. Pigott's eldest brother held the living of so-and-so, and that they were a family of very decided Conservatives. He appealed to the House whether they did not think that he did everything which was due to it to get information—that this Conservative family in Buckingham had rendered important service to the Prime Minister? But what was the reply of the Prime Minister to that information? It was that this was really a romance. He said that the father of Mr. Pigott was vicar of Hughenden some 30 years ago; that he left the county soon afterwards, and that one of the last political acts of the rev. gentleman was to register

  1705
  his vote against him (the Prime Minister). But why did the noble Lord say nothing about the family which had existed so long in Buckinghamshire, which was still there, and had always been known as a Conservative family? His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) had spoken of the vicar recording his vote against the Prime Minister, and had said that everything had been done with the view of making inquiry" as to the registration of the vote, but that the register had been destroyed. Now, while he (Mr. Holms) admitted that statements made to that House ought to be made carefully, he thought, at the same time, the same care ought to be exercised in "another place." He held in his hand the poll-book for the district, and he must beg the House to give attention to this statement—that in 1847 there was no contest in that county; that in 1857 and 1859 there was no contest; that in 1863, 1865, and 1868 there was no contest; and that the only contest where Mr. Pigott's vote could possibly have been recorded against the Prime Minister was that of 1852. Referring to the register of 1852, he found, Register No. 1,526, the Rev. John Robert Pigott, of Hughenden, freeholder of house and land on the hill near the village. With respect to that reverend gentleman the records in the Crown Office contained no statement that the rev. gentleman had voted on either one side or the other. He should go on a little further with the question. On Monday night, when they had the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they had a very frank and distinct reply, and he must say that the defeat arose entirely from the Government's own statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that great stress had been laid on the fact that Mr. Pigott was the son of a former vicar at Hughenden, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for himself did not deny it. He said that Lord Beaconsfield knew very little about Mr. Pigott personally, although that gentleman had often been brought under his notice as a rising man, aud that the noble Lord had watched his career. On this statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer one hon. Member after another began to feel that this did show that some interest was taken by the Prime Minister in Mr. Pigott, and there-
  1706
  fore the Government need not be surprised that their own statement should have brought about their defeat. Hon. Members began to say to one another—"How fortunate for a young man entering the Civil Service to have a Prime Minister to watch his career." He appealed to the House, whether it was the statement which he (Mr. Holms) made, or the statement made on the part of the Government, that brought about their defeat? Lord Beaconsfield had said that he had no personal acquaintance with Mr. Pigott, and that he did not know him even by sight; whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the noble Lord watched Mr. Pigott's career with great interest—a statement which certainly gave colour to the idea that family and political influences had brought about his promotion. He (Mr. Holms) did not care to dwell on the personal question; he was sorry that it was ever introduced, and he wished to pass on to what alone gave it importance—the national question, and to the consideration of the statement made on Monday night, and the explanation given on Thursday as to how the appointment was made. The gist of the recommendations of the Committee was simply this—that the Stationery Department demanded the supervision of someone possessing technical knowledge. Immediately on the Report being issued, the Treasury took that Department especially under its guidance, and the country was greatly indebted to the Treasury for the action it took in the matter. They effected last year a saving of some £40,000 or £45,000, with a prospective saving of from £20,000 to £25,000 more; and that justified the Committee so far in having pointed out that a change was essentially necessary with the view to obtaining more technical supervision. What he had wished to establish before and wished to establish now was, that for this the country was indebted to the Treasury and particularly to the Financial Secretary to that Department. He now came to the explanation made upon this point by the noble Lord in "another place" last Thursday. The noble Lord had changed the whole case. The noble Lord had made out that the country was not indebted to the Financial Secretary at all for the reductions of expenditure which had been effected in the De-

  1707
  partment and for the technical knowledge that had been displayed, but to a country gentleman, the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn). In fact, either the Prime Minister must be under some grievous misapprehension, or he changed the matter backwards and forwards in such a way as to make it appear that technical knowledge had nothing to do with those reductions of expenditure at all. The exact words of the Prime Minister were these—
  "Since the publication of the Report of the Committee, and very much in consequence of its suggestions, the expenditure of the Department has been reduced by £40,000 a-year, and at this moment there are changes in progress which will bring about a further reduction of £20,000 a-year. I think this is evidence that Her Majesty's Government have not in any way neglected the recommendations of the Committee of the House of Commons. Upon this point, my Lords, I may perhaps make an observation. It has been said this great saving of the public money, and the great and beneficial changes that have been effected, are striking proofs of the advantage of having as superintendent of the Office a person who has a technical knowledge of stationery and printing; for they have been ascribed to the influence and exertions of a distinguished Colleague of my own who is Secretary to the Treasury, and who before he entered into public life—happily, I think, for the public—was himself the head of one of the greatest establishments in this country connected with printing and with stationery. I allude to Mr. W. H. Smith, the Secretary to the Treasury—a name known and honoured. Now, I assure you my Lords—and I make this statement with his full authority and at his special desire—that none of those alterations in the Stationery Office are at all attributable to his influence and exertions. As Secretary to the Treasury, he has signed all the documents which have appeared connected with that Department, but the truth is, he signed them formally, with the full confidence that the work which had been done had been done properly. That work had been done by a Lord of the Treasury, Mr. Rowland Winn. It was solely by his individual exertions and unceasing care that those great improvements and that saving were effected; and I need not remind you, my Lords, that Mr. Rowland "Winn has no technical knowledge of stationery and printing, but is a Lincolnshire country Gentleman."
  So that the very basis of the argument offered in this House on the part of the Government on Monday last, that the reductions were the work of the Financial Secretary, were declared on Thursday by the Prime Minister to be a perfect myth. All this showed that the Prime Minister had made this appointment under a misapprehension, he evidently believing that technical knowledge was altogether unnecessary for the dis-
  1708
  charge of the duties of this office, and that any clerk in the Civil Service, or any mere country gentleman, could discharge those duties "efficently." Was it not rather remarkable that the House should have obtained information as to the opinions of the Financial Secretary, not from the hon. Member himself but from a statement made in "another place?" The Financial Secretary was the man who, of all men, could have given perfect information to the House as to the working of the Department, and the savings effected, and it was a very strange thing when hon. Members were showering compliments on the Financial Secretary for his technical knowledge, the Financial Secretary himself did not get up and repudiate all those compliments, saying that they belonged entirely to his hon. Colleague the Member for North Lincolnshire. He wished to know whether the Secretary of the Treasury had objected to the appointment when made? He looked at this matter as one in which administrative ability without technical knowledge had been preferred to technical combined with administrative ability. It had been asked in the course of the late debate—"Why should they complain of a rising man being put into that Department, when they had men in high places in Departments who were unacquainted with the technical details of them?" This view had been advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, who had instanced his own case, and that of the First Lord of the Admiralty, as those in which a man without any knowledge of military or naval matters had been placed at the head of the military and naval affairs of this country. But was not that merely an additional reason why the permanent officials at the head of the different Departments should have a perfect acquaintance with the technical details of the work of their different offices? Would the First Lord of the Admiralty think it very wise to suggest that one unacquainted with ships should be appointed Constructor of the Navy? He held it that in the Stationery Department, more than any other Department, it was essentially necessary that a man should be acquainted with the business. It was not a question only of a man being acquainted with his trade, for a man who was in the trade knew the traders, the men with whom he would have to deal.

  1709
  He would like to ask this question—was it not possible in that great country to get a man who had technical knowledge and at the same time administrative ability? Was there any other country in the world where there was so much technical knowledge and administrative ability combined in great undertakings? As to the recommendations of the Committee, the Prime Minister, on Thursday, went so far as to say that in appointing the particular kind of man who was recommended by the Committee, he should have to appoint a man who had retired from business, or from whom business had retired. He could not conceive how anyone could arrive at that conclusion. He held that such a man as the Committee recommended could be got, and at a fair and moderate amount of salary. There were plenty of men who were managers in the large stationery businesses in the country and in that town who had at the same time admirable technical knowledge and administrative ability. When he stated that during the period between 1865 and 1876 the amount of money expended in the Stationery Department had been over £4,000,000; when they looked at that sum and remembered that last year, by the good management of those acquainted with that particular trade, a saving amounting to 12 per cent had been effected for the country, it would be seen that had the same system extended over that 10 years, it would have amounted to something like £460,000 or £480,000. As regarded the question of giving this appointment to anyone inside the Department, the statement of the Prime Minister had only strengthened the position of those who were in favour of adopting that course. The Prime Minister had said—
  "But if, speaking generally, as I think it will be admitted, it is not wise that it should be considered a matter of course that a subordinate should succeed to the Chief on his promotion, certainly that rule would particularly apply when we were dealing with an Office, the administration of which was admittedly unsatisfactory. I say this particularly with reference to the Chief Clerk of the Stationery Department (Mr. Reid). I believe him to be an efficient and able officer; I believe that all that was good, or much that was good, in the late administration of the Office may be attributed to him. But, at the same time, the general administration has not been satisfactory, and it appeared to me of the utmost importance that fresh blood should be introduced into the Department."
  The truth was that what was wanted was
  1710
  not fresh blood, but fresh brains, and if the choice was between a clerk in the War Office and the Chief Clerk, he thought the appointment ought undoubtedly to have been given to the gentleman who was acquainted with the work. What were they asked to do to-night? They were asked to reverse a decision of the House of Commons come to only a week ago, and that because the information which the Government was able to furnish the House last Monday was not so complete as it might have been. Let him remind the House of a dictum once laid down in this House by the Prime Minister. On the 9th of June, 1873, they had a discussion in that House on the Cape and Zanzibar Mail Contract. On that occasion certain statements were made which the Government were not prepared to meet, and they wished for an adjournment of the debate. What did the Prime Minister, who was then Leader on the front Opposition bench, say on that day? He said this—
  "The House was in possession of all the information which would justify a decision; and if not the fault lay with the Government, who had chosen their own time and opportunity. There had been a full discussion; but because the Government could not give a satisfactory answer to the charge, they wanted to waste the time of the House, and arrest the Business of the country, by adjourning the debate."—[3 Hansard, ccxvi. 711.]
  They were asked to-night to do that which the Prime Minister on that occasion seemed to think ought to have been resisted. The Motion itself was a Motion referring to an explanation made on Thursday last. Why this delay of four days for an explanation? It ought to have been given at 2 o'clock on the Tuesday. There should have been no delay on the part of the Government in coming down to the House and giving that explanation, whatever it was. He, for one, would be extremely sorry to be ungenerous in dealing with a question of this kind. He would, therefore, not be sorry to see that part of his Motion expressing censure withdrawn; but in the interests of the country he could not but come to this conviction—that this appointment was not in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, nor in furtherance of the best interests of the country.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that as his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. J. Holms) had referred in such pointed terms to

  1711
  him, he hoped the House would give him its indulgence for a few minutes. He regretted that he was not in the House on Monday last when the hon. Gentleman made his speech; but, as hon. Members were aware, the duties of the Secretary to the Treasury were not light, and he was often obliged to pass his time in a room not far off, which was the case on Monday last when the hon. Gentleman was speaking. He was not aware that it was the intention of the hon. Gentleman to refer in any way to him, or he would have been in his place. The hon. Gentleman had given him great credit for the reforms effected in the Department. But the fact was, though he had most cordially and heartily seconded the efforts made by his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), he wished distinctly to state that the great reforms which had been effected were due altogether to his hon. Friend's unceasing exertions and attention at the Stationery Office. It had been said that those reforms had been due in a great measure to the technical knowledge which he (Mr. Smith) possessed. But though for many years, as the House and the country were aware, he had been, at the head of a very large business, it was nevertheless the fact that he never had any practical knowledge of printing at all. He had no doubt paid large sums for printing; but what he had done was to exercise his judgment to the best of his ability in the selection of a manager, and he had always to rely upon the advice of faithful and able assistants, who had served him well in the positions to which they belonged. He never was a technical stationer, he had not served an apprenticeship to the trade, his knowledge, such as it was, had been the result of observation and that practical power which came to men in the management of great business affairs. He did not desire to enter into the personal affair further than to say one word as to one who had been an officer of the Stationery Department, who had been referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and who had communicated with the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire and himself on this subject—he meant Mr. Greg. There could be no doubt that Mr. Greg did not treat his office in any way as "a deanery;" but had rendered faithful service to the
  1712
  State as Controller of the Stationery Office. Mr. Greg did not perhaps take the same views on all points as his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire; but to the best of his ability he enforced economy, and managed his office ably and well according to its established order and traditions. It would be harsh, unfair, and injurious to the Public Service that censure of the kind intimated by some hon. Members should be thrown upon a gentleman who, both in his literary capacity and as Controller of the Stationery Office, had rendered good service to the State. He was challenged by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holms) as to this particular appointment, and he was referred to the Report of the Committee and to the strong representations it had made that technical knowledge was necessary. The appointment, however, did not rest with him, and he was not in the slightest degree responsible for it. He confessed, however, if he had to make an appointment of this character he would strongly object to have his hands tied, or to be limited in the field of selection to persons having a technical knowledge. It was infinitely more important that in the Civil Service for the heads of the great Departments we should find men who possessed administrative ability and knowledge of the world, who were capable of dealing with other great Departments, who understood what human nature was made of, and who had not been educated in the comparatively narrow school of trade. In saying that, he cast no reflection on trade, because it was to trade he owed all he possessed. He believed trade to be honourable in this country; but undoubtedly if we looked around us, we should not find men capable of taking a very large view or of administering great public Departments who would take the comparatively miserable salary of £1,200 or £1,500 a-year. His hon. Friend said it would be possible to find an assistant in a great stationery business who would be glad to accept a post of the kind. [Mr. J. HOLMS: Not an assistant, but a manager.] He did not doubt that persons would be found of great technical knowledge, but it would be a mistake to appoint them. Without casting the slightest reflection on trade, it was inevitable that there should be something narrow, something careful, something minute in the training and

  1713
  education of a person in such a position, which would make him. less qualified to take a wide, a large, and, ultimately, an economical view. ["Oh, oh!"] He could only speak from his own experience, though he was always unwilling to introduce his own affairs. Some time ago it became necessary for him to find a person for the management of interests of the last importance to him. He had a very wide field of selection—3,000 persons. The man he selected was a University man, who had no technical knowledge, who was master of a public school, who had forced his way on in the world, was about 30 years of age, and had given great evidence of capacity; but his position was precisely that of Mr. Pigott at the present time. He was receiving an income of about £300 or £400 a-year. That gentleman was now the managing partner in a great concern. In the same way Mr. Pigott was selected, not because of his knowledge of trade, but for his knowledge of the world and his general capacity. He ventured to think these were the considerations which should guide the Ministers in the selection of the Chiefs of the great Departments of the State. He wished to speak with the greatest possible respect of Mr. Reid, the Chief Clerk of the Stationery Office. Mr. Reid had done very good service, and was a most faithful public servant. He did not, however, on that account doubt that the selection which the Prime Minister had made would conduce greatly to the public interest. He could not help saying again that the Government and the country owed practically the entire saving which had been effected in the Stationery Office to the exertions of his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire.
  MR. A. H. BROWNobserved that every one who was examined before the Select Committee said that technical knowledge was the great want at the Stationery Office; and when the Committee distinctly recommended that the person appointed at the head of that Department should be a man possessing technical knowledge, it was not right that their recommendation should have been set aside. That being so, he wanted to know what it was that had induced the Prime Minister to make the appointment? He believed there would have been no difficulty in finding a man in the trade perfectly fitted in every respect
  1714
  for this office. For example, one of the witnesses examined before the Committee, Mr. Howell, was appointed Director of Contracts in the War Department because of his technical knowledge, acquired in a trade from which he retired to accept that office. The Prime Minister said that he made this appointment on his own responsibility, and that Mr. Pigott's name had been laid before him by a gentleman of great experience in the Public Service. He should very much like to know who that gentleman of great experience was. The Prime Minister said that the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn), to whom the recent saving in the Stationery Office was due, was not a printer, but a country gentleman. He was in the recollection of the Committee, however, when he said that the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire, when sitting on the Committee, was particularly distinguished for his knowledge of the printing trade, and put some very pertinent questions on the subject, so that it was clear his hon. Friend was possessed of some information, which he had used for the benefit of the public. That was, he thought, an additional reason why some person with technical knowledge should have been appointed Controller of the Stationery Office. He held that the appointment was a great mistake, and hoped the House would not withdraw the Resolution it had passed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I feel, Sir, in common, I am sure, with many hon. Members, regret that it should be necessary to take up so much time as we have done this evening in discussing a question of this kind. But, on the other hand, I feel, as I said an hour ago, that the House must be satisfied that it would be impossible, with a due regard to its own dignity, and with a due regard to the character of a man, which, not only from personal associations, but from the important office which he fills, ought to be of great importance, and ought to be valued by every Member of the Legislature—that it would be impossible, I say, with a due regard to those considerations, that this matter should be allowed to remain and rest where it stood. The question which had been raised with respect to this appointment of Mr. Pigott divides itself into two parts. There is, as has been said by the hon. Member for Hackney

  1715
  (Mr. J. Holms), the national and the personal side of the question. I do not intend, though it is a very important part of the subject, to say much on what he termed the national side. It is undoubtedly the fact that the judgment arrived at by a Select Committee of this House two or three years "ago is at variance with the course which the Prime Minister on his responsibility deemed it right to pursue in making this appointment, and it may very well be argued, without any reflection on one side or the other, either that the view taken by the Committee was correct, or that that taken by the Prime Minister was the right view. There can, however, be no disgrace arising out of a question of opinion on a matter of such intricacy and delicacy as the precise amount of value to be attached to the particular qualifications for a special office. I may say a few words on this part of the question before I sit down, but I may spare myself much trouble with regard to it, because I believe what I stated on Monday last, and what my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury stated with so much authority just now, has very fairly placed before the House the views by which the Prime Minister was actuated in coming to the decision at which he arrived. I, therefore, pass by for the present that part of the subject for the purpose of coming to another, and in many respects the most important and delicate part of it—I mean the personal part of the question. I speak of it as the most important part of the question for two reasons—in the first place, because if my noble Friend, Lord Beaconsfield, in selecting Mr. Pigott was influenced by considerations of a personal character, then undoubtedly all the arguments by which he defends, and by which we also defend the selection are tainted and vitiated by the suspicion which would be thrown upon an appointment said to be made from personal motives; and the reasons which were given, and which I hope to show are the true and only reasons, are cast into the shade from the suspicion that they were put forward merely as after-thoughts for an appointment that was made on very different grounds. But, besides that, the question of the motives with which the appointment of Mr. Pigott was made is one of the highest delicacy and import-
  1716
  ance, because it would be intolerable that the character of a man in the high position of Prime Minister of this country should be allowed to rest under an imputation that in making a selection for an appointment he was governed by unworthy motives. Now, in this House a very large majority of hon. Members—indeed, I may say, with very few exceptions, the whole House, has for a greater or smaller number of years known the Prime Minister as the most distinguished, or one of the most distinguished, ornaments of the House. They know very well that his life has nearly all been passed here. They know that although he has now been removed to another sphere, yet in the judgment of history it will be as a Member of the House of Commons that he will be chiefly remembered; and those who know him well are well aware that there is nothing nearer or dearer to his heart than that he should retain that which everyone, I think, will admit he acquired—the respect and affection of the House of Commons. This I may venture to say, speaking as for my Friend as well as for my Chief, that I know nothing that has ever hurt him so deeply within my recollection of him as the censure and the reflection cast upon him in the Vote of last Monday night. I do not think it needs any intimate acquaintance with my noble Friend to believe that, but it has come home to me in an especial manner, because it is impossible for me not to feel that to a very great extent the Vote which was passed on that occasion was passed through a fault of my own. ["No no!"] Yes, it is true; for it has been said to-night, and justly said, that it was because of the imperfect manner in which I met the charges and repelled the accusations of the hon. Member for Hackney that many hon. Members either voted in the majority, or abstained from voting upon that occasion. Sir, I have felt very deeply that it may have been owing to some laches, or, at all events, some fault of my own that that result was arrived at. This very evening I have felt that again, because the hon. Member for Hackney, on getting up and beginning to argue this ease said he was bound to call attention to the discrepancies between the statement I made on Monday and the statement which was made by my noble Friend, Lord Beaconsfield, a

  1717
  few days later; and he said that what the House was asked to do on the present occasion was to displace the statement I made in this House by the statement made by Lord Beaconsfield in "another place." Sir, I must answer, therefore, and I must answer as carefully as I can, the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I must endeavour to state as clearly as I can exactly what occurred with regard to this Motion, and with regard to my own language on the subject. Now, Sir, it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Hackney has reminded us, that he put this Motion down some considerable time before he brought it on. He says he put it down on the 18th of June. I have no doubt that was the day—at all events, it was some time ago—and it did so happen when the Notice was put down that, my attention being attracted to its terms, I spoke to my noble Friend, Lord Beaconsfield, on the subject. I will say in a moment what passed between us; but I may also say this—that from that time till the Motion was brought on, I never had any further communication with him on the subject, and I may very possibly have imperfectly recollected some of the things which passed between us on that occasion. Now, when the Notice was first put down I observed its terms. They were to the effect that the appointment which had been made was calculated to diminish the weight and influence of Committees of this House, and, of course, it immediately occurred to me that what was meant by that statement was, that the appointment was made in contravention of the recommendations of the Committee of which the hon. Gentleman had been Chairman. That, therefore, was the point which was particularly in my mind; and when I spoke to the Prime Minister on the subject I said to him—"What is to be said with regard to this Notice of the hon. Member for Hackney?" and his answer to me was to this effect—"You can say that I considered the recommendations of the Select Committee; that I did not think that I was bound by those recommendations; and that I did not approve them; that, in my opinion, to appoint a gentleman taken from the trade would either be impossible, because you would not be able to get a man who was in a flourish-
  1718
  ing business to leave his business for the salary you could offer; or it would be objectionable, because you would have to take a man who has failed." That was an argument simple and common enough, and I will not stop to inquire whether it was a good argument; but with regard to Mr. Pigott, my noble Friend said—I cannot remember the precise words, but I think he said—"I do not know much about him except that he was recommended to me very strongly. He is the son of a former vicar of Hughenden, and I have heard of his being often employed in the Public Service in a manner which has been very creditable to him." Now, the impression I own I carried away from that was, that at different periods, or from time to time, the Prime Minister had heard that Mr. Pigott had been well employed. My noble Friend also said—"I will send you a statement of his services." Well, he sent me a statement of his services, and I will read the exact words. I do not know by whom it was written, but it was dated from the War Office. It says—
  "Thomas Digby Pigott, aged 37, appointed a temporary clerk in the "War Office on the nomination of Lord Beaconsfield, and to the Establishment, after competition, in 1860."
  The House will observe that although he was appointed a temporary clerk on the nomination of Lord Beaconsfield in 1859, he subsequently gained his place on the establishment by competition in 1860, under a Government with which Lord Beaconsfield had no connection.
  "Was in temporary charge of the Militia branch for some months during a time of unusual pressure in 1870, and was told that if he wished it, his position there should be confirmed, but it would be more convenient if, instead of remaining permanently in charge himself, he helped to enable a senior clerk to take the post, and accordingly did so. At the end of 1870 he was offered Lord Northbrook's private secretary ship and served with him during the Session in which Purchase was abolished, and until 1872, when Lord Northbrook went to India."
  Lord Northbrook has taken occasion publicly to express his sense of Mr. Pigott's services.
  "Served as private secretary to Lord Lansdowne from April, 1872, to February, 1874, and to Lord Pembroke from March, 1874, till his resignation in 1875. Served as Secretary to the Royal Commission on Army Promotion from November, 1874, to August, 1876, and has since been chiefly employed on special

  1719
  work connected with the Report of the Commission, for which he was thanked by Mr. Hardy in his Estimate speech this year. Is now acting temporarily as assistant private secretary to Mr. Hardy."
  That is the statement which was put in my hands; and I confess that coupling what the Prime Minister had told me as to his having heard that Mr. Pigott had often been well employed—or, as I understand him, that he had often heard of his being so employed—and as to his being the son of a former vicar of Hughenden, with the fact that his original appointment was due to Lord Beacons-field, I—perhaps wrongly, but I think not altogether unnaturally—derived the impression that he had been known to Lord Beaconsfield, and that Lord Beaconsfield had from time to time heard of him in his career. But it really was a matter which did not dwell upon my mind at all, and when that appointment came to be challenged, my impression was simply that I should have to argue the case as from the national point of view, and show why a stationer or a gentleman connected with the trade should not be appointed, and why the office should be given to an eligible man in the Public Service. I took it for granted that almost everyone would acknowledge that if a man was to be selected from the Public Service, the appointment of Mr. Pigott was probably as good an appointment as could have been made. Now, I find that to a certain extent I was in error, because it is perfectly true, as was afterwards stated by Lord Beaconsfield, that he did not know Mr. Pigott; and although he was, in a manner which I will explain in a moment, responsible for Mr. Pigott's original appointment as temporary clerk to the War Office; yet he had not known or heard anything of him until just a little while before the time came for making this appointment to the Stationery Office. Now, with regard to the original appointment of Mr. Pigott to the Public Service, I have made inquiries as to the circumstances under which he was first nominated. I believe it was at the time when General Peel was Secretary of State for War. There was a demand for a considerable number of temporary clerks at the War Office, and General Peel asked a number of friends to recommend young men suitable for the post. He placed a nomination
  1720
  at the disposal of Mr. Disraeli, who gave it to a clergyman in his county for his son. That clergyman not having occasion for it declined it, but asked as a favour that Mr. Disraeli would give it to a very promising youth—Mr. Pigott. The appointment, therefore, in the first instance, of Mr. Pigott, was really made, not on the recommendation of Lord Beaconsfield, but on the recommendation of a gentleman to whose son he had offered it. To go to the other end of Mr. Pigott's career, so far as it has gone, the question was raised, how came he to be selected for the appointment at the Stationery Office? Well, I confess that when I was speaking on Monday last I had known so little of these questions of patronage that I was really not aware of what had occurred; but I have since communicated, of course, with Lord Beaconsfield, and I have received from him a full account of the steps he took when this office had to be filled up, and have been shown by him the names of the persons who were under his consideration as eligible for the appointment. It is not right to give the names, but the House will accept my assurance that I am well acquainted with the names, and that I know the manner in which they were brought under Lord Beaconsfield's notice. Two of the gentlemen hold appointments of considerable eminence in the Civil Service, men fairly of the rank of the Controller, of the Stationery Office; those gentlemen were known to Lord Beaconsfield, as their names would be known to many hon. Members of this House, if they were mentioned; and it appeared to him that either of these gentlemen might properly take the office if he wished. The first declined it at once, because he preferred the office he held; the second, after some hesitation, also declined. In the meantime, there had been sent to Lord Beaconsfield the names of a good many persons who were recommended for the appointment. It is asked by whom they were sent. They were recommended by a great number of persons, for the most part by the Chiefs of their own Departments. One gentleman of whom I have some personal knowledge, though he is in a Department I am not connected with, was recommended by the Secretary of that Department, who is certainly neither politically nor in any way a friend of Lord

  1721
  Beaconsfield, and who yet had a very fair reason for recommending a gentleman he was acquainted with. Some others were recommended by hon. Members of this House; one or two gentlemen personally made application for the post; and others were recommended by gentlemen who knew them. These names were referred to the Prime Minister in the ordinary way through his private secretary, not as recommendations made by the private secretary, but as recommendations made by different persons; and in some cases there were several backers to the same man. Mr. Pigott did not apply, and was not in the number of those who were so recommended. He had recently been serving as Secretary to the Army Purchase Commission, and Lord Penzance, as Chairman of that Commission, has borne testimony in the strongest terms of the value of Mr. Pigott's services. Mr. Pigott's term of service in that Commission had expired, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, who was at the head of the Department, thought he had done his work in that Commission so well that he sent his name to the Prime Minister as that of a proper man to be chosen in case any other Commission required a secretary. My right hon. Friend knew nothing about the Stationery Office; it was simply and solely because my right hon. Friend shared the opinion of all Secretaries and Under Secretaries who had cognizance of Mr. Pigott's service that he gave Mr. Pigott's name for employment. The name arrived at a time when Lord Beaconsfield, having twice failed to obtain the services of gentlemen to whom he had offered the appointment, had several names before him, and, having considered them, he came to the conclusion that Mr. Pigott's services showed him to be a man of such general administrative ability as to promise exceedingly well for an appointment of this sort; he preferred him to the others, and that is the simple history of this case. If you compare the history of Mr. Pigott's career and the manner in which he was selected for the appointment which he holds with that of any gentleman who holds any position whatever—I do not care what it is—in the Civil Service—though you may have your opinions as to whether it was wise
  1722
  or not to appoint a man without technical experience, whether it would have been right in that respect to defer to the opinion of the Select Committee—there is no man whose appointment was made more honourably and in a more straightforward and thoroughly pure manner than this. A collateral question has been raised with regard to the statement made by Lord Beaconsfield as to the vote given at an election by Mr. Pigott's father. I really think, if I may venture to make such an observation, that Lord Beaconsfield need hardly have gone into such a matter, because, even if Mr. Pigott's father had been his best friend and supporter, that would not in any way disqualify the son; it would have been exceedingly hard that a young man who had shown talent and capacity should have been excluded from positions for which that talent and capacity fitted him simply because his father had been a supporter of the Prime Minister of the day. I own I did not expect to hear in this House from any hon. Member of it expressions such as were used early in the evening which seemed to throw a doubt on the veracity of Lord Beaconsfield; but as the statement of Lord Beaconsfield on the subject has been challenged, it is right I should say a word upon it. As Lord Beaconsfield stated, Mr. Pigott was the vicar of Hughenden some 30 years ago, at the time at which Lord Beaconsfield became possessor of the property. As has been stated in an independent letter read by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot), and as is perfectly well-known to many persons, there were some unfortunate differences between Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Pigott; in fact, there was a lawsuit between them, and I believe they were not at all upon friendly terms. The House will bear in mind that the original appointment of the younger Mr. Pigott was made, not on the initiative of Lord Beaconsfield, but at the suggestion of another person, Mr. Disraeli generously giving a nomination to the son of his former opponent in the Law Courts. After the statement had been made in this House that Mr. Pigott was the son of a gentleman who had been a political supporter of Lord Beaconsfield, a member of Mr. Pigott's family addressed him a letter stating that the vicar voted against him, and on

  1723
  this information, which coincided with his own impression, Lord Beaconsfield made the statement with regard to the vote. Since then he has endeavoured, by reference to the proper authorities of the county, to obtain precise evidence of the fact; but he was informed that no document existed which would afford that evidence. The grounds on which Lord Beaconsfield made the statement, therefore, were quite sufficient to justify him in saying what he did in his speech. These are really the facts of the case, and I do not think the House wishes, or that it is all desirable, to go any further into the matter. I fully admit it is desirable to pay proper respect to the recommendations of a Select Committee; but there are many recommendations of such Committees that have not been followed. The only point on which I am anxious there should be no mistake is the question of the personal character of Lord Beaconsfield. I think I may appeal to the hon. Member for Hackney himself, and to the great body of hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, as well as to my Friends on this side—and I am sure I shall not appeal in vain—when I ask them to unanimously withdraw a censure which I am convinced would not have been passed—at all events, in the terms it was—upon this appointment, if it had not been for the impression which prevailed—and I must say I take great blame to myself for allowing it to prevail—that something had been done in this matter which would not bear the light. I am quite sure after all the contests in which we have been engaged in this House one with another, and after all the sharp passages which from time to time have passed between my noble Friend and his opponents, here and "elsewhere," there is that kindly feeling of regard among ourselves for the man, and, above all, that sensitive jealousy for the character of the great office he fills, which would make us all desire in every way we can do it to clear a character which must be dear, not only to us, but to all Englishmen.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I hope the very full, candid, and generous explanation which has just been given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite may enable us at all events to come to a decision upon this subject without further loss of time. I do not deny that a matter of this sort, which
  1724
  involves the distribution of the patronage of the Government, is an important one; still, at this period of the Session, time is of some importance, and a question of this sort may be discussed at too great a length. I quite agree that it was due to the dignity of the Government and of the House that some action should be taken in the matter to put the Government and the House into harmony with each other, seeing that a Resolution has been passed by this House which, I think, requires some justification. Beyond that, the further explanation that has been given relates almost entirely to the personal aspects of the case, and nothing has been said as to the subject of the recommendation of the Select Committee which was referred to in the debate. But I must say there was much in the speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) that I heard with very great surprise and regret; and it seemed to me that the speech was, to a great extent, irrelevant to the Motion he asks us to adopt. Explanations might have been confined almost entirely to the personal aspect of the case, and yet the hon. and gallant Member unnecessarily went at great length into the arguments which the House had before it previously as to the conduct of the Government in relation to the recommendations of the Select Committee. But I thought a good deal of the hon. and gallant Member's speech was of a somewhat trivial character. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it was hardly right even for the noble Lord at the head of the Government to refer to that matter about the vote. It was necessary for my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Holms) to refer to the matter, because doubts were cast on the accuracy of his original statement; and it was very natural that he should have wished to say as much on that subject as was requisite to show that he had not made his statement without due consideration. But it was really a waste of the time of the House for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to read at length a letter which he had received from a correspondent, who, he said, was 83 years of age, in order to show the nature of the relations which had subsisted between the Rev. Mr. Pigott and Lord Beaconsfield. There was a part of the speech of the hon. and

  1725
  gallant Gentleman which I thought was not only irrelevant, but also rather wanting in the good taste which usually distinguishes his remarks; for on a question such as this, when through the fault of somebody—but not of anybody sitting on this side—the House and the Government have been placed in a position of antagonism and difficulty, I cannot see how that situation is made any better by the references he made to certain appointments which, in his opinion, were improperly made by the late Government. Sir, a more injudicious speech in which to introduce a conciliatory Motion, which I hope we shall all be unanimously disposed to support, I have seldom heard than that of the hon. and gallant Member. I have said that I hope we shall unanimously agree to this Resolution. I have no hesitation in saying to my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Holms)—he is perfectly aware of it—that I had some doubts when he first showed me the terms of his Motion. I thought he attached somewhat too much weight and authority to one isolated recommendation of a Select Committee. I cannot but think that if too much weight is attached to any such recommendation, the responsibility of the Government would be diminished, and that the responsibility for administration would be practically removed from the Minister and placed upon Committees. I also frankly owned to my hon. Friend that I had some doubt as to the recommendation itself. I told him that I much doubted whether a man practically acquainted with the details of this business could be found, at any rate at the salary that was offered. My hon. Friend gave me some further particulars respecting the appointment; and I informed him that I should be glad to hear the arguments on both sides, without pledging myself as to how I should vote. Well, I heard the statement of my hon. Friend, and I unfortunately also heard the statement made on the other side; for after the explanation, or rather the want of explanation, from the Government on the matter, it was impossible for us to do otherwise than we did on that occasion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) spoke in the course of the former debate. He attached little weight to the personal side of the question, but he appealed strongly to the Government
  1726
  to tell us whether there was any excuse which could be made for this appointment. He said—"Can you inform us that the recommendations of the Committee were fully weighed and considered; what steps were taken to inquire whether such a man as the Committee recommended was to be found or not; what course was adopted to find a suitable candidate for this office?" We were told nothing, except that the Prime Minister had watched the career of this young man with great interest from his youth; and I must say that the impression conveyed to everybody's mind, until it found expression from the hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams), was that there was something in this business which savoured strongly of a job. That was the impression under which a number of hon. Gentlemen on this side voted; it was also the impression under which a large number on the other side voted for the Motion, and a larger number abstained from voting at all. I think that, as a general rule, nothing could possibly be more inconvenient than that a reply should be given to a debate in this House in "another place." But still, those explanations have been made; and although we may all have our different opinions as to whether this is the best appointment which could have been made or not, as to the weight which ought to be given to the recommendations of a Select Committee, and as to the recommendation itself, still, I think that in very few minds will any impression now remain that this appointment has been made without consideration, that it has been made solely on personal grounds, or that the gentleman who has been selected is not well qualified in many respects for the appointment. I quite admit the force of the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that it is quite impossible, with all the business which passes through his hands, that he should be able to make himself acquainted with every detail in a case like this. And if this explanation could have been given on a former occasion, I am strongly of opinion that the decision of the House would have been different. In those circumstances, although the subject comes before us in a somewhat irregular and inconvenient manner, I believe there is no hon. Gentleman, on whatever

  1727
  side he may sit, who would wish that a decision of the House arrived at under a misapprehension should remain unreversed, and therefore I hope that my hon. Friends on this side will think fit to agree to this Motion.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he could not congratulate himself or the House on the position which they occupied on that occasion. They had, he thought, been acting the play of Much Ado about Nothing. He still retained the opinion he had the other night that, the appointment of a junior clerk over the heads of so many other people was a mistake. But between an error of judgment in such a matter and the use of the patronage of the Crown for personal or private ends there was a very wide distinction. He was bound to say that he voted on the last occasion from a misapprehension, as the hon. Member for Hackney's (Mr. J. Holms's) statement was not founded upon facts. At the same time, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had misled the House on Monday last by withholding information from them. The right hon. Gentleman was in the position of a counsel who undertook to defend a client without having received a brief. If the right hon. Gentleman had on Monday last said as much as he had that night, he should have voted differently; but the right hon. Gentleman's speech upon that occasion influenced him (Sir Rainald Knightley) to vote for the Resolution. That showed the fallacy of the saying that the speeches made in that House seldom influenced the votes given in it.
  SIR GEOEGE BOWYERsaid, that the House would be doing no more than a simple act of justice if they rescinded the Resolution of Monday last. The Resolution was agreed to because the House thought the appointment was a job. But what was a job? Why, an appointment made to serve private interests as against the public interest. It having been shown that the Resolution was founded on a mistake, it ought to be rescinded.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House, while most anxious to maintain the usefulness and influence of its Select Committees, and to encourage the interest and zeal of officials employed in the Public Departments of the State, after hearing the further explanations concerning the recent appoint-
  1728
  ment of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, withdraws the censure conveyed in the said Resolution.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. MELDONrose to call attention to the expediency of adopting means to secure better remuneration to the Irish National School Teachers, in accordance with the pledge given in 1874, and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, some means should, without further delay, he found to provide Irish National School Teachers with such remuneration for their services as will secure to them more certain incomes, and less dependent on contingencies than at present, and more commensurate with the services which they perform."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman stated the circumstances of the case of these teachers, which had been discussed on two previous occasions that Session. He said, that in 1874 certain pledges had been given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland with respect to the salaries of the Irish National Schoolmasters, but the Act of 1875, which was intended to carry out the pledge given in 1874, was admitted to be a failure, and that the scheme set on foot last year failed to secure certainty in the amount of these teachers' incomes. These unfortunate men who were doing such exemplary service to their country never knew at the beginning of the year what their income would be. It was not measured by their own exertions; but it depended upon the will of others whether they received the amount Government intended they should have. They were left at the mercy of the Guardians, and in the present year only 38 Unions were contributory to the salaries of the teachers, and the whole state of things was so unsatisfactory that he could not help thinking the Government would make another attempt to remedy the evil. He did not think that the new system could be permanent, and indeed it was, to a great extent, never intended

  1729
  to last; it had been introduced as an experiment and as a temporary measure. But a year had now passed, and in his judgment some steps ought to be taken to render the position of the teachers more independent. They could not be so at present, for the average salary was hardly £50 a-year, and he trusted that the House would perceive the justice of the cause he advocated. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, some means should, without further delay, be found to provide Irish National School Teachers with such remuneration for their services as will secure to them more certain incomes, and less dependent on contingencies than at present, and more commensurate with the services which they perform,"—(Mr. Meldon,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BRUENsaid, that there was much to recommend the Resolution from the teachers' point of view. They were not in a satisfactory position, and their case deserved the favourable consideration of Parliament. If they wished that the education of the country should be adequately and properly conducted, they should sufficiently pay the men who were engaged in it. That was not the case here, for he found that the average salary of National School Teachers in Ireland was only £50 per annum, and if that was the average he would leave the House to imagine how small must be the minimum. In his opinion it should never be less than £1 per week. But, granting that the salaries at present paid were insufficient, it was difficult to devise means for raising them. The Chief Secretary had, in the year 1875, introduced a measure with that object, and a very large number of Unions had agreed to come under its provisions; but experience had, unfortunately, shown that that did not work satisfactorily, and one by one nearly all the Unions had discarded it; and he feared that the general tendency was not to give an adequate amount of assistance to the teachers. He hoped
  1730
  his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary might be able to give some assurance that he would hold out to the National School Teachers an expectation that their just claims would be considered.
  MR. O'REILLYthought the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) was entirely fair and just. His hon. and learned Friend's sole object, however, was to improve the condition of the teachers, whereas his (Mr. O'Reilly's) own desire was to improve education in Ireland. If we attained the latter object, we should likewise gain the former; but he entertained a decided opinion that the raising of the salaries of the teachers, irrespective of the amount and quality of teaching given, would, instead of improving education in Ireland, have a directly opposite result. He was strongly in favour of payment by results, and of State aid in proportion to local contributions and results.
  MR. RICHARD SMYTHmaintained that it would be a mistake to carry the system of payment by results beyond the point at which it was, and pressed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to re-consider the position of the Irish teachers. The Contributory Union Fund had proved a total failure, and if the Government were not prepared to make further provision from the Votes of Parliament, they ought to make some propositions that would remedy the evils which the Act of 1875 had utterly failed to meet. He hoped that Act, now practically a nullity, would be repealed.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, the benefit which it was intended by the Act of 1875 to confer on the teachers in the National Schools in Ireland was defeated by the action of Boards of Guardians and other influences, and the teachers, who ought to be maintained in circumstances of respectability, were reduced every year to go in a cringing way and canvass the Guardians and others to do justice to them, and to obtain for themselves what was actually necessary to keep soul and body together. Beyond that, the payment might be by results, as an inducement to them to persevere in their work. Experience showed that matters were getting worse, and for himself he felt it his duty to vote for the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare.
  CAPTAIN NOLANthought it must be admitted that the Irish National School Teachers were insufficiently paid, when their remuneration was about on a level with that of the Irish day labourer. The Government would do a popular as well as a wise thing in raising to a moderate extent the salaries of those teachers. They gave to the teachers in England twice the amount of salary that they gave to the Irish teachers. The case of the Irish teachers was a very serious one. Let them consider the grants given for education in the three countries—England, Scotland, and Ireland. The Government, in the last year, gave £600,000 towards education in England; £300,000 to Scotland, with a population of only 3,500,000; and to Ireland, with a population of 5,500,000, only £100,000. The State ought surely to give encouragement to education in Ireland, and especially to the teachers.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Meldon) asked for some increase to the fixed salaries of the National School teachers, but no suggestion had been made by him as to the source from which the funds to carry out that object were to come. He gathered, however, that they were to be derived from Votes of Parliament. Well, he did not regard the present incomes of the teachers as entirely satisfactory, but he had to point out that this was hardly the fault of Parliament, for while the sums voted in 1868, for the payment of teachers, amounted to £270,700, the Votes had gone on increasing year by year till last year they amounted to £530,000. The teaching Staff had, no doubt, increased in numbers in that time, but the increase was very slight. It could not, therefore, be said that Parliament had not done its share in the matter. The real reason why the remuneration of the teachers was so small was that the amount of local contributions and school fees was small. Here too, however, there was an increase from £47,000 in the year 1868 to £108,000 in 1876. But though that increase was going on, the sum received from local contributions and school fees ought to be greater, for he had always felt that other persons besides the Government and Parliament were interested in the improvement of the position of the teachers. He might add
  1732
  that the Government had shown themselves disposed to increase the grants still more, provided the local contributions, which were deficient, were increased. He confessed that he thought it was strange, if there was such a strong feeling in Ireland in favour of popular education, and of better payment of the teachers, as had been represented, that Boards of Guardians, when empowered to contribute to a small extent towards paying the teachers for the results proved to have been attained by them, should in so many cases have been unwilling to vote 1d. or 2d. in the pound for this purpose. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare had on a previous occasion brought before the House the loss caused to the teachers in non-contributing Unions by this refusal on the part of the Guardians; and the Government had consented in such cases to accept local contributions of a certain amount, derived from any source, in lieu of the payment from the rates. The result was greatly to stimulate local efforts on behalf of the schools; for in the Unions affected by the change there had been an increase in voluntary contributions from £7,582 in 1875 to £12,486 in 1876, and in school fees from £23,900 in 1875 to £34,000 in 1876. This was a proof that the incomes of the teachers could be increased from local funds where any real effort was made. He thought that this was the source to which they ought mainly to look for any future improvement in their position, and that if any increase was to be made from funds voted by Parliament, it should take the form of payments for results, rather than that of an addition to the fixed salaries of teachers.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGthought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would be read in Ireland with very great regret. They were losing the best teachers in Ireland, just as the best men in the Constabulary had also left, in consequence of dissatisfaction with their pay. Though year after year hopes had been held out to the Irish people of assistance in the matter of education, those hopes had not been, and, apparently, were not likely to be, realized. The National School teachers had educated the youth of Ireland, and Ireland, being a poorer country than Scotland and England, might fairly ask for aid for them. He would suggest the

  1733
  advisability of passing a Bill which would make it compulsory for Boards of Guardians to contribute such sums as would raise the salary of the school teachers to a point at which they would be able to maintain themselves and their families.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government was acting in an extraordinary manner. It was some years since the salaries of the teachers had been admitted to be insufficient, and the measure introduced to increase them had proved a failure. The fact was that Government, instead of attempting to remedy existing and glaring evils, had been pursuing a series of experiments at the expense of the National School teachers and the growing youth of Ireland. This so called national system of education had been carried out without the slightest reference to Irish opinion on the subject.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERcomplained that from the first the system of national education in Ireland had been established for Imperial purposes. It was still retained for those purposes, and it was in conflict with the wishes and feelings of the people who were called upon to contribute to its support. He submitted that it was not fair to call upon any section of the people to make contributions for educational purposes, if they gave them no voice in the management of education. Yet that was the condition which the right hon. Baronet laid down before he would promise any State aid for the purpose under consideration. The remedy was one which had already failed, and he wished to know whether the Government had no other resource which they could apply to the satisfactory settlement of this question?
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 73: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 246.)
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL MESSENGERS AND LETTER CARRIERS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. H. B. SAMUELSONcalled attention to the position of certain letter carriers and messengers, and urged that the pay and allowances of all such
    1734
    public servants ought to be based on an equitable scale. His clients, he remarked, were a very numerous body, and their demands were so reasonable, so just, and so small, that while the concession of them would confer a boon upon the men, they would necessitate but an inappreciable claim upon the public purse. Those whose cause he pleaded desired that equal labour should receive equal remuneration, and that letter carriers and messengers should no longer be an exception to the rule which obtained in connection with other employments—namely, that an increase of work and length of service meant an increase of pay.
    MR. FRENCHsupported the observations of the hon. Member for Frome.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, no one had more sympathy with the position of the letter carriers than he had; but the proposition of the hon. Member was impossible. There were 22,000 persons in the employment of the Post Office as letter carriers; some were employed the whole day, some only during the portion of the day; some of them had to walk long distances, while some had less duty to do in that respect. Such being the case, it would be impossible to carry out the proposal of the hon. Member. He was not aware of any great hardships in the Service. If any case did occur, he would take care that it should be inquired into at once.
    Sir CHARLES W. DILKEwished to have some explanation of the terrorism exercised over the employés.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not know that any such thing existed.
    MR. EARPput in a plea for better clothing for the men. They should have waterproofs in wet weather.
    MR. MACGREGGORwas glad to hear that there was no terrorism in the Service, and he hoped that, if hereafter a postman petitioned that House, or communicated with a Member of that House, he should not be dismissed for doing so.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, he had known of instances of terrorism, and wondered how they had escaped the attention of the noble Lord.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the noble Lord must either be unfit for his office, or else he was stating to the House that which was not the fact. ["Order, order!"]

    1735
    He did not mean to accuse the noble Lord of wilful falsehood; but any person who stated that terrorism did not exist in the Service must be incompetent to fulfil the duties for which the noble Lord received several thousands a-year.
    Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Wednesday.

  NAYY—H.M.S. "INFLEXIBLE" AND "CAPTAIN."

    MOTION FOR A PAPER.
    CAPTAIN PIMmoved that there should be added to the Papers on the Inflexible, a Return of the curves and stability of the ship, and of the Captain, stating that the curve of stability of the lost ship Captain was double that of the Inflexible.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That there be laid before this House, a Return to be added to the Return, Navy (H.M.S. 'Inflexible'), No. 295, 1877, the curve of stability, with the Report, dated 23rd August 1870, of H.M.S. 'Captain,' with the curves e, f, and g of H.M.S. 'Inflexible' set out thereon to the same scales; also the Letter of the late Chief Constructor, dated 23rd August, published in the 'Times,' 24th August 1870, and the submission of the late Controller, dated 24th August 1870, respecting the stability of H.M.S. 'Captain.'"—(Captain Pim.)
    MR. A. F. EGERTONconsidered it inadvisable that while this subject was under consideration by a Committee further Papers should at present be issued, and he pointed out that the curves of stability of the two vessels could not be properly compared. It would be unnecessary and also misleading.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 25: Majority 8.—(Div. List, No. 247.)

  PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL REGISTRATION BILL.

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. MARTENmoved that the
    Select Committee to consist of Twenty-one Members: — Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, The LORD ADVOCATE, Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. BOORD, Mr. COTES, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, Mr. DODDS, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. GOURLEY, Mr. HAMOND, Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. ROWLEY HILL, Mr. ISAAC, Mr. CHARLES LEWIS, and Mr. MELDON, nominated Members of the said Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That The O'Donoghue be one other Member of the Committee."
    MR. BIGGARobjected to the nomination of the hon. Member for Tralee (the O'Donoghue), on the ground that he did not represent the opinions of any section of the Irish people.
    MR. MARTENhoped the objection would not be pressed. The name of the hon. Member was proposed at the express request of several hon. Gentlemen from Ireland.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEremarked that while Ireland was represented by three Members, Scotland had only one Member.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 34; Noes none.—(Div. List, No. 248.)

    SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ISAAC, Bill to amend "The Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. ISAAC, Mr. ASHBURY, and Mr. HERSCHELL.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act (1857) Amendment* (156).
Report—Factors Acts Amendment* (140); Registered Writs Execution (Scotland)* (144–157); Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Atherton, &c.)* (86)—(Caistor Union, &c.)* (94).
Third Reading—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Hyde, &c.)* (93), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (£20,000,000) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 24]; Solicitors Examination, &c. [40 & 41 Vict. c. 25]; Colonial Fortifications [40 & 41 Vict. c. 23]; Public Works Loans (Ireland) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 27]; Companies Acts Amendment (No. 3) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 26]; New Forest [40 & 41 Vict. c. 121]; Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Artisans and Labourers Dwellings) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 122]; Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Ennis, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 123]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (Barton, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 124]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Bridlington, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 125]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Order Confirmation [40 & 41 Vict. c 126]; Local Government Provisional Order (Sewage) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 127]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Glasgow) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 128]; Provisional Orders (Ireland) Confirmation (Holywood, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 129]; Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Felmingham, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 130]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (Abingdon, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 131]; Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Belper Union, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 132]; Metropolis Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation (Great Wild Street, &c.) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 133]; Saint Stephen's Green (Dublin) [40 & 41 Vict. c. 134].

THE MEDITERRANEAN GARRISONS.

  QUESTION.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to ask my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any information which he can give with regard to the movement of troops to the Mediterranean?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have no difficulty in answering the Question of the noble Earl, which, under the circumstances, is natural and opportune. What has happened is this—The Mediterranean garrisons are at present, I understand, below their full complement, and in the uncertain and disturbed condition of Europe it has been thought desirable that they should be strengthened to the extent of about 3,000 troops. That is the sole foundation for the statements in the newspapers.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1869—IMPORTED CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  In reply to Earl FORTESCUE,
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, there had been some further outbreak of cattle plague in the Metropolis; and there had been some fresh importations of diseased cattle. But the regulations in existence would be amply sufficient to deal with that or any other outbreak which might arise. In the Metropolitan area no animal was allowed to leave a cowshed within an affected area except for the purpose of being slaughtered, and no animal was allowed to be removed from the north to the south side of the Thames. A Committee of the other House was now sitting and would shortly report on the subject. It was not for him to anticipate what their Report would be, nor would it be possible for the Government to take any further steps till the Committee had reported.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.