Sitting of 5 August 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WHIT ISSUED—For Boston, v. John Wingfield Malcolm, esquire, Manor of Northstead.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Lord William Montagu Hay, for Haddington Burghs.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class IV. — EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ART; Class III. — LAW AND JUSTICE.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Foreign Jurisdiction* [267].
Considered as amended — Contagious Diseases (Animals) [286]; Marriages (Fiji) * [285].
Withdrawn—Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) * [145]; Bankruptcy Law Amendment * [119]; Medical Act (1858) Amendment* [216]; Medical Officers' Qualifications* [62].

QUESTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the President of the Board of Trade, To explain why the Annual Statement of Trade of the United Kingdom is not ready for reference within the first quarter of the year, seeing that the Trade Accounts, from which the Annual Statement is compiled, are all collected immediately the year closes?
  VISCOUNT SANDON, in reply, said, the Board of Customs was responsible for the delay. He had written to the Chairman of the Board with the view of expediting the publication of the Statement, and it would be laid before the House as soon as possible.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF MR. R. W. HARMAN.—QUESTION.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. R. W. Harman, of Old Brompton, Kent, who was arrested by the Metropolitan Police at the Eton and Harrow Cricket Match, on a charge of stealing an opera-glass which proved to be his own; whether it is not the fact that Mr. Harman was able on arrest to give the most complete and satisfactory

  1173
  evidence as to his name, address, and position, but was nevertheless detained in prison from Friday to Monday, without having the opportunity of telegraphing or writing to his wife and friends; whether a gentleman was not arrested at the same match last year, under similar circumstances, on a charge of stealing an opera-glass which proved to be his own; whether he was not afterwards confined to his bed for three or four months from illness brought on by the treatment he then received; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made and proper compensation awarded to Mr. Harman, and take such steps as may for the future protect persons attending the Eton and Harrow Cricket Match from being arrested and sent to prison without reasonable grounds for suspicion?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I suppose the case turns upon the manner in which the police have acted. I cannot promise compensation or anything of the kind in this case. The magistrate informs me that when this prisoner was charged before him, the constables gave their evidence with great deliberation, and a full note was taken of it by the clerk. The prisoner did not at that time impugn their statements, and did not attempt to cross-examine them, and no application was made for bail, which certainly would have been granted. The magistrate was very much struck by the silence of the prisoner, and was inclined to believe that it was because he had nothing to say. I do not think that under such circumstances the magistrate can be blamed for sending him to prison on remand. Unfortunately, the same gentleman was arrested last year. [Mr. GORST: Not the same gentleman.] Oh, another gentleman. I beg pardon. He was brought before the same magistrate; the police gave their evidence, and in consequence of that evidence the magistrate at first refused to admit him to bail. It afterwards appeared that he was not a likely person to commit larceny, and he was accordingly discharged. In this case the magistrate thought that the evidence of the police was not carefully given. I do not think that there is any ground for compensation in this case. With regard to the information as to his treatment at the hands of the police there must be some mistake, because he was undoubtedly allowed to write to his
  1174
  wife. The gentleman who was arrested in 1877 was seen by the surgeon, was under no treatment while in prison, and made no complaints. He was visited by his father every day during the five days he was under remand, and also by his solicitor, and was supplied by his friends with a liberal allowance of food. He made no complaint whatever.

  JUDICIAL STATISTICS — CONVICT PRISONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will be good enough to lay upon the Table of the House, a Return showing the number of prisoners in each of the Government Convict Prisons in Great Britain and Ireland during each of the ten years ending on the last day of December 1877; and showing also the number of suicides and attempts at suicide in those prisons, and also the cases in which prisoners have mutilated or attempted to mutilate themselves, and giving in a condensed form the particulars of each such case of suicide or mutilation; and, further, a Return of the number of prisoners flogged in each prison during each of those years, with the number of lashes inflicted?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I am quite willing to give every kind of information connected with prisons so far as facts are concerned. All the facts I believe, not matters of opinion, are stated in the official statistics and annual Re-ports which are presented to Parliament, and I am told the Royal Commissioners have requested that some such statements as these may be prepared for them. They are in course of preparation. If the hon. Member desires that I should lay them on the Table of the House, I will do so; but I think they had better appear in the Reports of the Commissioners.

PRISONS ACTS—PLANK BEDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the names of prisons in Great Britain and Ireland in which bare planks were in use as beds for ordinary offenders

  1175
  previous to the Government taking over the management of the prisons into their own hands; and, whether he will be good enough to obtain, through the Foreign and Colonial Offices, Returns showing in what Foreign Countries or Colonies such planks for ordinary offenders are in use in the prisons?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I had hoped to be able to reply at once as to the number of prisons in which planks are used; but, unfortunately, the Return has not yet come down to me. Plank beds were in most liberal use in the prisons long before they were passed over to the Government. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the origin of the plank bed system. It was started in general use after the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords in 1863. That Committee found they had been introduced generally in military prisons, and recommended that they should be introduced into the civil prisons; and it was in consequence of that Report that the prisons throughout the country adopted the plank beds. With regard to foreign countries, I cannot answer the Question; but I believe that after the holding of the Prison Congress, which will take place in Stockholm in the course of the present year, I shall be able to give the information. When the Return I have already spoken of reaches me, I will be happy to lay it on the Table if the hon. Gentleman wishes.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES.—ARTILLERY SERGEANTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that a Sergeant of Militia Artillery is entitled to extra pay, at the rate of 6d. per diem, when employed in drilling a Brigade Depot or Infantry, or at heavy gun practice, whilst the Sergeant of Artillery Volunteers is not so entitled when similarly employed; and, if so, whether he is prepared to alter the Regulations so as to grant, under like circumstances, the same rate of extra pay to both Militia and Volunteer Artillery Sergeants?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, a pensioner sergeant of Militia—Artillery or Infantry—employed in drilling troops of the Regular Army, is considered to be performing a special military duty; and,
  1176
  under an Auxiliary Reserve Force Circular of 1877, receives, while so employed, an allowance of 3d. a-day. This allowance is in reality in lieu of rations in kind, which, to prevent confusion, are not given to the Militia sergeants at periods other than training. The pensioner Volunteer sergeant, if performing similar duties, does not, it is true, receive the allowance of 3d. a-day; but he can receive a ration in kind, worth about 1d. a-day, for 4d., which places him in about the same position as the Militia sergeant.

INDIA—MADRAS WILLS FOR 1788 AND 1789.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true that the Registry or volume containing copies of the Madras Wills is missing or has been stolen from the India Office?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir, it is true that the volume containing copies of the Madras wills from 1788 to 1789 is missing. Its loss has only recently been discovered, and if the volume cannot be recovered, other copies of the wills will be obtained from Madras.

  NAVY—COMMANDERS ON THE ACTIVE LIST.—QUESTION.
  MR. VANS AGNEWasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that of the Commanders whose names now stand on the Active List of the Royal Navy only 11 per cent of those who attained that rank in the five years 1870–74 inclusive had served for more than twelve years as Lieutenants; that of those who attained that rank in the three following years, 1875–7 inclusive, 52 per cent had served more than twelve years as Lieutenants; and that in last year twelve out of seventeen, or 70 per cent of the Commanders of 1877, had served more than twelve years as Lieutenants; and, whether he is of opinion that this progressive retardation of promotion is injurious to the service, and if he proposes to take any steps to give a more rapid flow of promotion to Officers in the lower ranks of the Royal Navy than is possible under the rules now in force?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am free to admit that the hon. Gentleman's figures are nearly, although not quite, correct; and that while only 11 per cent of Lieutenants promoted to be Commanders between 1870 and 1874 had more than 12 years' seniority, 52 per cent of those promoted between 1875–7 had served more than 12 years, and 65 per cent of those promoted in 1877. I must also acknowledge that delay in promotion is injurious to the Service, as it is most desirable that young and vigorous men should be found in the ranks of commanders and captains. The difficulty arises from the fact that a larger number of officers is required in the junior ranks of the Service than can be provided for in the higher ranks; but I am afraid I am not prepared to swell the number of the higher ranks beyond the real requirements of the Service. All I can promise is that, recognizing the evil, I will give the subject my best consideration, with the view of seeing whether a remedy can be devised.

  SUPPLY — SUPPLEMENTARY ARMY ESTIMATES.—QUESTION.
  MR. HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the total amount included in the Supplementary Army Estimate in respect of the occupation of Cyprus by Her Majesty's Forces; and, whether he can state how such total amount is distributed for stores, works, and fortifications?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, the last part of my hon. Friend's Question has not reached me, and I am not, therefore, in a position to answer it. What we have taken is £10,000 for staff, £25,000 for works, and £45,000 for stores; but it is quite obvious that these amounts can only be approximate. These are the stores and works within the General Vote, and what the repayments may be I cannot say.

RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE ADMIRALTY—REPORT OF COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHEELHOUSE (for Captain PIM)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, the Report on the Reorganization of the Admiralty made by the Committee appointed for
  1178
  that purpose, consisting of the honourable Baronet the Junior Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Lingen, and Mr. E. G. C-Hamilton, who has just received the appointment of Accountant General of the Navy?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that there was no objection to give the information referred to as to the recommendations of the Committee for the reorganization of the Admiralty; but the Committee itself was a Departmental Committee, and it was unusual to produce Reports of that character to the House, and it would be inconvenient to set a precedent of that kind. If the hon. and learned Member called at the Admiralty, he would be happy to show him the Report.

NAVY—THE CENSUS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. HUBBARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he would inform the House how and when he intends to take the Census of the Navy in the form ordered on Monday last, July 29th; and, how soon he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the completed Census, the basis of any correct actuarial calculation of the cost of the Seamen Widows' Pension Fund?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, that instructions had been issued for the preparation of forms for taking the Census of the Navy, and he hoped they would soon be completed. When they were, it was intended to issue them to the Commanders - in - Chief at the different ports throughout the globe, to have them filled up on the 1st of January and returned to the Admiralty. But he was afraid it would be the middle of the next year before the Returns could be collected so as to form the basis of any correct actuarial calculation of the cost of a Seamen Widows' Pension Fund.

  THE WINDWARD ISLANDS — BARBA-DOES.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any steps are being taken by the Governor of the Windward Islands to carry out the long contemplated reforms in the Government of Barbadoes; and, whether he can lay upon the Table any Papers or Despatches relating to the present condition of the Colony?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, at the instance of the Governor of Barbadoes, a measure for securing the better representation of the Government in the House of Assembly was introduced into that body; but was, I regret to say, rejected. The Governor has since been obliged to return home for a time on account of ill-health, and I hope during his stay in this country to confer with him as to the course which should now be pursued. I do not think there are any Papers which I could with advantage lay upon the Table at present.

  CENTRAL ASIA —RUSSIAN MILITARY EXPEDITION.—QUESTION.
  MR. C. BECKETT DENISONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any inquiries have been made by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Saint Petersburg as to the aim, object, and purpose of a reported military expedition under General Kaufmann to the South of the Oxus, threatening the town of Balkh, which is in Afghan territory?
  MR. BOURKEYes, Sir; inquiries have, been made at St. Petersburgh on the subject referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend, and the matter is receiving the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

  SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, &c—QUESTIONS.
  MR. CHILDERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Supplementary Budget, if he might use the expression, would be brought on in Committee of Ways and Means? He would also be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could state the course of Business for the week.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir I should be only too glad if I could indicate the general course of Business more clearly than I am able to do. To-morrow we shall take as the First Order the Committee of Ways and Means, and I shall then make what my right hon. Friend calls the Supplementary Budget, or Financial Statement. I do not know whether that will lead to discussion in Committee, but I presume there will not be much discussion before going into Committee, Then would fol-
  1180
  low the Vote for the Supplementary Army Estimates in Supply. I see that the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter) has a Notice on the Paper, and I do not know whether he will bring that on to-morrow or not. Therefore, there is great difficulty in judging how much progress we may make to-morrow. Probably, we shall go on with Supply on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. If we get through the Army Estimates, we shall propose then to take the Navy Estimates on Thursday; and if we are fortunate enough to get through them, we shall take the Civil Service Supplementary Estimates on Friday. To-night, if we are able to do it, we hope to get through all the remaining Votes of Classes III., II., and I.; and, if there is time, we might finish the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill. It may be convenient to some hon. Members to say that we propose, in any case, to take the Report on the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Bill on Monday next.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, there were Estimates and Supplementary Estimates. In what order was it proposed to take these?
  MR. ANDERSONhad hoped for some information as to what Bills it was intended to take. Were the Government going on with the Medical Act Amendment Bill? He wished to know, because it was getting so near the end of the Session.
  MR. J. COWENasked, if it was intended to persevere with the Telegraphs Bill; and, if so, he desired some intimation when it was likely to be taken?
  MR. JENKINSasked, if it was proposed to go on with the Bishoprics Bill?
  MR. M'LARENasked, what course was to be taken with the Education (Scotland) Bill, which was brought on at three o'clock on Saturday morning, when many of the Scotch Members were not present?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, we propose to take the ordinary Army Estimates first, and then the Supplementary Army Estimates, and to exhaust these before we go to the Navy and Civil Service Estimates. I cannot say at what particular hour the Cattle Plague Bill, which stands just after Supply, is likely to be taken. I will not go on with it at an unreasonable hour, though, at this time of the

  1181
  year, it is difficult to say what is an unreasonable hour. The Bishoprics Bill will be proceeded with. I announced some time ago that the Indictable Offences Bill would not be proceeded with; but although I promised that due Notice would be given of when the Order was to be discharged, I am unable to give that Notice at present. We are unable, at this moment, to say whether we shall proceed with the Telegraphs Bill. As to the Medical Act Amendment Bill, I have communicated with the Lord President of the Council, and he is of opinion, as we also are, that it would be useless to attempt to pass it at this period of the Session; and the Order will, therefore, be discharged. With regard to the Scotch Education Bill, he would leave his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to say what course he was going to follow.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would not have brought the Scotch Education Bill forward the other night, except at the request of Scotch Members. When he was asked to bring the Bill on, he said he thought it was rather late, but if they wished to go on, he, for one, would not object to it. One hon. Member objected; but he was met by a perfect chorus of Scotch Members insisting upon it. He (Mr. Assheton Cross) was bound to say a quieter and calmer two hours' discussion he did not believe had ever taken place in that House. He would bring on the Report at the earliest possible opportunity.
  MR. M'LARENgave Notice, that he would move that the Report be taken into consideration this day three months, and that would prevent the Bill coming on after half-past 12 o'clock.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONthought the arrangement just announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Supplementary Budget Statement and the Supplementary Estimates was the most convenient that could be adopted. The Motion, of which his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Hayter) had given Notice, called in question, to a certain extent, the whole recent policy of the Government, and also partly the policy of the Expenditure which would have to be discussed in Committee. Now, it seemed to him that the general question of policy had been tolerably well discussed last week, He
  1182
  presumed that there would be a full opportunity in Committee of discussing the Expenditure incurred in removing the Asiatic troops to Malta and in the occupation of Cyprus. He would, therefore, suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend that it would not be necessary to interpose his Motion before the Speaker left the Chair, but that his object would be sufficiently met by a discussion on that Expenditure in Committee. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), who was not in his place, also had a Notice of Motion on going into Committee on the Supplementary Estimates. It would, perhaps, be convenient that the discussion on the Supplementary Estimates should, if possible, be taken to-morrow; and the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney, which was one of a somewhat abstract nature, might be discussed equally well on going into Supply on any other occasion. He hoped to be able to persuade his hon. Friend not to interpose his Motion to-morrow.
  MR. HAYTER, after what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord, acceded to the suggestion just made by his noble Friend. He might however add, that having received a great amount of support on the Liberal side of the House, especially below the Gangway, he surrendered not the substance but only the form of his Motion. It would be competent for him to raise the subject of the Military Expenditure and the occupation of Cyprus in the discussion that would take place in Committee on the Supplementary Estimates.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that as there were some 20 odd Notices on the Paper before going into Committee, he wished to know when the Education Votes would be taken if they were not reached tonight?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they could hardly expect to reach the Education Votes to-night.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

H.M.S. "BEAGLE"—EXECUTION OF A NATIVE OF TANNA — POWERS OF NAVAL COMMANDERS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GORST, in rising to call attention to the circumstances under which a Native of Tanna was, on the 25th of September, 1877, put to death on board H.M.S. "Beagle," and to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that instructions may be issued to the Officers commanding Her Majesty's ships to define and regulate their authority to put persons to death not subjects of Her Majesty;"
  said, he disclaimed any intention of reflecting on the officers engaged in the affair, as they had only carried out the orders thrust upon them by their superiors; but he objected to the system by which naval officers were turned into Judges of Assize, and Her Majesty's ships into a sort of itinerant gallows. He wished a Parliamentary check to he put on such proceedings. It was a matter of complaint, too, that they had neither the whole of the evidence which was taken as to the man's guilt before them, nor had they the whole of the correspondence which took place between the authorities on the subject. It had been said that the hanging of a single man, even for an unjust act, was, after all, more humane than the destruction of a whole village; but why did Lieutenant Caffin not destroy the village? The fact was that he wanted to do so, but found that the village was out of his reach; and there was no reason, therefore, for attributing to him any humane motive for the course which he followed. As he could not destroy the village, the course he took was to seize a number of innocent individuals, who fancied themselves to he under the protection of the British flag and British justice, and who had no more to do with the murder than the First Lord of the Admiralty himself. Most of these men were detained for a time, but were afterwards allowed to go. Three, however, were still secured. Then, for the first time, the lad who was finally hanged was mentioned by one of the three prisoners. In many of those Islands the Chiefs exercised so much power that they could easily get someone to come forward and suffer even death for them; and in this case it appeared to him
  1184
  that the person executed was certainly not the culprit. The lad was cross-examined, but not his accuser. In the course of cross-examination, he contradicted everything that he had said before, and he was condemned solely on the evidence given by him in cross-examination. He was made to say—" I would have fired if my brother's shot had not taken effect," in answer to a question which no English Judge would have allowed to be put. The proceedings were very irregular, and even his judges did not seem to be satisfied that he was the murderer; for sentence was delayed, and the search renewed for the actual murderer. It was only when this search failed that the poor lad was put to death. Hitherto it had been the general opinion that the law of this country prevailed on board Her Majesty's ships of war, and that even an enemy's spy must be tried by a regularly constituted tribunal. The tribunal which had tried this youth had not been regularly constituted; and it was singular that the sentence, which was, of course, an important document, and which had been translated into Tannese for the benefit of the Natives, should not be forthcoming. He could not find it in the Papers presented to Parliament. He had always understood that the deck of a British man-of-war was a place within the peace of our Sovereign Lady. It might be said that the man who was hanged was in the position of a constructive boarder, whom it was lawful to kill as an act of war. He did not adopt that view, however, and his error on the point was shared by Sir Matthew Hale, who, 200 years ago, laid it down that if a man killed an alien enemy within this Kingdom it was felony, unless it were done in the heat of war and in the actual exercise thereof. The question naturally arose, who was really responsible for what had been done? There was evidently a time when the Admiralty thought they could throw the responsibility upon Commodore Hoskins, for they had telegraphed to him asking him to communicate at once the legal authority on which he had acted. Commodore Hoskins drew his neck out of the noose very satisfactorily by referring the Admiralty to two documents which he claimed would amply justify the proceedings. Those documents were a despatch of February, 1876, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and

  1185
  an opinion given by the Attorney General for New South Wales. The first was not produced, and he thought the House had a right to complain of the course taken by the Government in withholding it. The letter of the Colonial Secretary appeared to authorize the act in question, and the opinion of the Attorney General for New South Wales was to the effect that no tribunal in Her Majesty's Dominions having any jurisdiction to try a foreigner for offences committed outside of those Dominions, the commander of the ship was right in taking the law into his own hands. He had, however, yet to learn that the jurisdiction of a commander of a British man-of-war began when the jurisdiction of every other legal tribunal in Her Majesty's Dominions ceased. The proper course to have adopted would have been to have sent a ship of war to compel the foreign authorities to execute justice upon their offending subject, and not to have taken the law into their own hands. He should like to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the captain of a man-of-war, without the authority of an Act of Parliament, had jurisdiction to try persons not subjects of the Queen for offences committed outside of Her Dominions? If the Government did not mean to assert that, then the proceedings in this Tanna case were wrong. If, on the other hand, the Government did mean to assert it, all he asked was that the authority of the officers commanding British ships should be defined and regulated, if not by the authority of Parliament, at all events, by some instructions from Her Majesty.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words ''an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that instructions may he issued to the Officers commanding Her Majesty's ships to define and regulate their authority to put persons to death not subjects of Her Majesty,"— (Mr. Gorst,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)observed, that the subject before the House was a very serious one, and that it deserved far more grave
  1186
  treatment than had been given to it by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), in making his strictures upon Her Majesty's Government. The two questions raised were—first, whether instructions given by the Colonial Secretary to captains of Her Majesty's ships were proper; and, secondly, whether those instructions had been legally carried out? The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he did not intend to make any attack on Lieutenant Caffin, but it seemed to him that the whole object of his hon. and learned Friend had been to show that this young officer had not done his duty; and that, in fact, he had hanged the wrong man. He (the Attorney General), however, thought he should be able to demonstrate, without the slightest difficulty, that the hon. and learned Gentleman's adverse criticisms were not in the least degree justified by the facts, that that officer had instituted a proper investigation into the facts of the case, that he had carried out his instructions properly, and that the opinion which he arrived at was right. The important question was not whether he had made a mistake, but whether, under such circumstances as existed in this case, the commander of a British man-of-war was entitled to read a lesson to the Natives of Tanna—that was to say, to endeavour by the action he pursued to put a stop to what was going on; and whether he was entitled to treat this man, who had murdered—for he would assume that for the sake of argument— a British subject in Tanna, as an enemy of Her Majesty? This was a question which must be dealt with, with some regard to the principles of common sense. He did not say there was any jurisdiction in point of law to try this man. No Court had, to his knowledge, yet been established in which to try savages; but when a savage attacked British subjects, and when it was necessary, to secure the rights of British subjects, to levy war upon them, we were perfectly justified in doing so. Take the case of a British ship of war anchoring off the coast. A party of men going on shore were attacked by the Natives, and one of them, from no fault of his own, was slain. Was it to be contended that, because there was no Court to try the Native who slew the man, the commander of Her Majesty's vessel might not take action immediately, and attack them? Had we

  1187
  arrived at such a pitch of humanitarian absurdity as to declare that in such a case the commander of Her Majesty's vessel had no right to take action for the protection of British subjects? It was a strong thing to say that the commander of one of Her Majesty's vessels had no right to levy war. Where his hon. and learned Friend got his views upon the subject he really did not know. His (the Attorney General's) view of this matter was a very simple one. He did not assert that the man was tried by any Court having jurisdiction to try him; but he and his fellows, Natives of Tanna, had murdered British subjects; and several British subjects having been previously murdered in that place, the commander of Her Majesty's vessel had a right to levy war on them. He might have shot them all down; he might have destroyed a whole village had he chosen; but because he had proceeded in a more merciful and considerate way, they had had a virulent attack upon the Government. The Secretary of State for the Colonies having telegraphed to Commodore Hoskins on the subject, the Commodore, in reply, sent a letter which gave a most reasonable and intelligible account of these proceedings. The Commodore said—
  "2. I beg now to report more fully that in giving Lieutenant Caffin orders respecting the punishment of the murderer of Easterbrook at Tanna, I was in the first place guided by the conviction, that it is the duty of naval officers generally to protect British subjects in lawless and savage places, and when they are maltreated or murdered, to punish the perpetrators, if it is clearly established that no sufficient provocation has been given, and that they had not forced themselves into the country in opposition to the wishes of the inhabitants.
  "3. In holding that conviction, however, I have not lost sight of the fact, that the first pioneers of trade in such places as the Western Pacific Islands must go about to a great extent with their lives in their hands, and that it would be as impolitic as it would be unjust to visit with extreme rigour the offences against their persons or property which are committed by natives who, in what they do are only following their natural instincts and traditions, and are doubtless in many cases provoked and stimulated to revenge, by acts of which we hear nothing.
  "4. From the time of my arrival on this station I have been constantly urged by island traders to avenge such offences with wholesale punishment and slaughter of their aggressors, but I have invariably resisted all applications which would involve indiscriminate firing on villages and probable loss of innocent lives, pointing out that where proper precautions are taken, such occurrences are rare, and are no more than must be expected as the consequence of careless ex-
  1188
  posure in dealing with savages with whom cannibalism and skull-hunting have been immemorial customs. In reply, it has more than once been intimated to me, that if I would not take action in the matter, the traders would take the law into their own hands; to which I have answered, that it did not alter my view of the matter, and that I should repress any improper conduct of British subjects to the utmost of my power.
  "5. It is evident, however, that in our growing intercourse with the islanders, there is a point and class of offences, when it becomes necessary to hold them more strictly amenable to our usages and ideas, and estimate of the value of human life; and such is the case, I consider, when, in places where white men have established a footing, and the natives, from constant intercourse with them, and from labouring in our colonies, are emerging from the lower depths of barbarism, wanton outrages are committed by them on our people, with little or no provocation given, but stimulated by cupidity or revenge."
  He submitted that the view of Commodore Hoskins was a correct view. If British subjects had forced themselves upon these savages, the case would have been different; but when British subjects had been for some time living in the place, when the savages had become aware, to a certain extent, of our laws and of our mode of dealing with them, and then wantonly attacked British subjects for the purpose of revenge, or for the purpose of gratifying their cupidity, then it was time, in the opinion of Commodore Hoskins, to interfere. His hon. and learned Friend had said that Parliament was entitled to judge for itself of all the details, and that the instructions which were issued to Commodore Hoskins ought to have been placed before the House. Quite sufficient information had been placed before the House to enable it to judge of the matter, and if his hon. and learned Friend had had any real desire to see the Papers which he named, it was quite competent for him to have moved for them, and they would then have been produced. From the beginning to the end of this accusation against the Government, his hon. and learned Friend had acted like an attorney in a County Court, who, by way of accusation against his adversary, asked why he did not produce this, that, and the other, when all the time his hon. and learned Friend knew that the instructions would have been produced if he had asked for them. If they had had been put on the Table, they would have thrown more light on the subject, and thus his hon. and learned Friend would have been deprived of the only lance he could fairly or unfairly have

  1189
  used against the Government. But it had been said, instead of demanding this murderer to be given up to him, Lieutenant Caffin should have gone to the King or the Chief of the country, and have demanded that he should have taken the man's life away. But where was the difference? If we had the right to levy war, we had the right to take the man's life away? His hon. and learned Friend was more astute in these matters than he was; but he confessed that he could see no substantial difference. We had done all we could, by passing the Pacific Islanders Act, to prevent British subjects from attacking those people, and many outrages having occurred on British subjects, it became necessary that they should be checked. Let the House then consider for a moment whether Commodore Hoskins was fairly open to the attack which had been made upon him? Some time in April of last year, apparently, Easterbrook, the man in question, who was an inhabitant of the Island of Tanna, found his way, accompanied by some four men and his wife, on board a British man-of-war. He was at the time seriously wounded, and at the point of death. He was removed ashore and taken to the house of a missionary. Mr. Neilson, where he died shortly afterwards. Before he died, he stated that he had a quarrel with a man named Nakapok about cocoanuts. The same account had been given by his wife and by the four men. What was remarkable was that in those accounts nothing was said about there having been a quarrel in consequence of an intrigue with the wife of the murderer, and the matter having been brought under the notice of Commodore Hoskins, he issued the following sailing orders to Lieutenant Caffin on the 24th of July, 1877:—
  "Being in every respect ready, you are to put to sea on Wednesday, the 25th instant, and proceed to Noumea, New Caledonia, where you are to communicate with Her Majesty's Consul, and hand him the enclosed letter.
  "2. A British subject, named Easterbrook, having been murdered at Sulphur Bay, near Port Resolution, Tanna, Mr. Layard communicated on the subject with Lieutenant Musters, commanding the 'Conflict,' who visited Port Resolution and inquired into the matter. Lieutenant Muster's report of his investigation, and the conclusion he came to, is enclosed for your information.
  "3. You are then to proceed to find the 'Renard' in the New Hebrides, and having
  1190
  taken her under your orders, make the best of your way to Port Resolution, Tanna, where you are to further inquire into the murder of Easterbrook; and should you be fully convinced that it was not his own misconduct which led to the commission of the deed, you are, should you deem your force sufficient, to endeavour to obtain possession of the murderer; and, if successful, you are to cause him to be executed in the most public and judicial manner possible.
  "4. Should you, however, deem the force at your disposal insufficient for the purpose, and to overawe any resistance, you are to report so to me by the 'Renard,' which vessel, under any circumstances, is to leave for Sydney as soon as possible."
  Having received those instructions, Lieutenant Caffin set out for Tanna, and took into his counsel Lieutenant Pugh, who happened to be there at the time. He also consulted Mr. Neilson, the missionary, who seemed to know more about the Natives than anybody else. Lieutenant Caffin then said that on the day following his arrival he sent a letter to the chief men of the village of Numukur. to which the murderer belonged. He added—
  "5. On Tuesday, the 18th"—of September— "a messenger arrived from the village with the reply that the chief men had received my letter, and that they refused to give the murderer up for trial."
  Now, his hon. and learned Friend contended that the course which had been taken by Lieutenant Caffin was altogether wrong; although, if the Chiefs had consented to execute the murderer, no complaint, he seemed to think, could be made. But the murderer not being forthcoming, what, he would ask, was Lieutenant Caffin to have done? There being a number of Natives on board the ships, he ordered them to be taken as hostages, in order to see whether he could not make them surrender the murderer. Many of these were afterwards allowed to go, but three were detained. Mr. Neilson then informed him that he had fortunately secured the principal man in the neighbourhood, and it was discovered on interrogation that the pre-supposed murderer Nakapok was not the actual one, but that a person named Yuhmaga, was. Mr. Neilson, the missionary, said—
  "Yuhmaga acknowledged to me that he had shot Easterbrook, and I took out of his hands the musket with which he did it. He alleged in justification that the white man had committed adultery with a woman belonging to him, called Yasua. The woman, who was standing near, confirmed his statement, but on being questioned said that the adultery was committed with her consent."

  1191
  Exhortations were made to the murderer to go on board Her Majesty's ship, where he might rely on a fair trial, and to take the woman with him; hut this he refused to do. A boat was landed from the Beagle to try and make him, but he rushed into the covers, and it would have been dangerous to follow him, seeing that the Natives, who were friendly to him, were armed, and thus prepared to prevent his capture. Now, what became of his hon. and learned Friend's statement, that Nakapok was the real murderer and that Yuhmaga was only a scapegoat?
  MR. GORST: What I said was, that although Yuhmaga had openly stated on the beach that he was the murderer, yet it was quite conceivable that he was a mere scapegoat put forward by Nakapok.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)observed, that in reply to that, he could only say it was not conceivable and not possible, and that no rational man dealing with the matter would come to such a conclusion. After Yuhmaga had escaped, a man named Nawanabus, who held a good position among the Tanna people, was examined, and in his examination stated that Yuhmaga had murdered Easterbrook by Nakapok's orders. Yuhmaga, he added, was not accompanied by Nakapok on the evening of the murder, but by Nokwai, a younger brother of his own. Here it was, perhaps, well to remind the House that the investigation of the affair was not pursued under the same advantages as it would have been in a Court of Justice. Lieutenant Caffin had orders to get the murderer, and was bound to go upon the best evidence he could get, without troubling himself particularly about the propriety or otherwise of examining accused parties themselves. Accordingly, he did what most men would have done in the same circumstances. He examined Nokwai, who stated—
  "I saw Yuhmaga shoot Easterbrook. I was standing very close to Yuhmaga at the time. I had no gun, but my club was in my hand at the time. Yuhmaga said to me—'Let us two go and kill the white man.' I said—'I won't, but will go with you and carry my club.' Yuhmaga shot Easterbrook because he had committed adultery with Yasua …. the wife of Nakapok. I saw Easterbrook fall to the ground on his back, and I immediately ran. I think Yuhmaga was acting rightly in killing Easterbrook. There had been a quarrel between Nakapok and Easterbrook about cocoanuts. Nakapok did steal Easter-brook's cocoanuts, and brought them to him
  1192
  again for sale. Nakapok induced Yuhmaga to shoot Easterbrook. Nakapok and Easterbrook quarrelled for four days about the cocoanuts, and on the fifth day Easterbrook was shot. He was shot on account of his liberties with the woman, as well as on account of the cocoanut dispute."
  Having made that statement, Nokwai was confronted with Yuhmaga, who stated that his gun was loaded with powder and ball, and that his brother told him to fire, and he said he would have fired if his brother's shot had not taken effect. There could, therefore, be no doubt that Nokwai was there to help Yuhmaga in case of need. Now, was a man who committed murder because he was asked to do it to be held guiltless, and was another man who went there to assist him not to be held equally guilty with him? When it was said there was no evidence to convict the murderer, it seemed to be forgotten that they had the man's own confession; and it was also clear, from the evidence which appeared in those Papers, that all the three men concerned were guilty of murder according to our notions of law. In those circumstances, acting under his instructions, Lieutenant Caffin condemned the man to death. Giving a fair and reasonable interpretation to the evidence, anyone who was anxious to do what was just and right, and who, while he sympathized with the Natives, desired to protect British subjects, as was his duty, would come to the same conclusion as that at which Lieutenant Caffin arrived. It might be said that although the conclusion was right, nevertheless the orders were wrong; but he thought the officer was right in the decision to which he came. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham had accused that officer of he knew not what, and said that if he had been a Native Chief he would have refused to give up that Native. No doubt, in that case, the hon. and learned Member would have thrown every obstacle in his power in the way of a course that was reasonable and fair. But the commander of the Beagle thought it was his duty to get hold of the murderer; he did his best to get the man who actually fired the fatal shot. He failed to do so; but he did get the man who aided and abetted the crime, and who, according to our law, was guilty of murder, and caused him to be executed under the instructions he had received for the purpose of protcet-

  1193
  ing British life. The question was whether, when British subjects had been wantonly slaughtered without cause or justification, the commander of a British ship of war was not warranted in saying that he would stop such proceedings in future, and throw his protection over British subjects in future in that place, and would do so by levying war on those who had proved themselves to be enemies of Her Majesty?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as the first Member who brought this subject before the attention of the House, he must express his surprise that, although the Attorney General had addressed the House at much length, he had shed so little light on the subject. It almost seemed as if, feeling the badness of his case, the Attorney General had spoken at such length to confuse the real issue before them. The hon. and learned Attorney General had divided the question under the two heads of the law and the facts. He considered that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was a good authority to follow in regard to this subject, first as being a lawyer, and next as being an undoubted authority on the subject of the Polynesian Islands. The Attorney General had made merry at the expense of his hon. and learned Friend, because he had not called for Papers; but if he recollected rightly, those Papers had been made the subject of many a Question by his hon. and learned Friend. Let the Government produce the despatch on that matter of Sir Arthur Gordon, the High Commissioner for Polynesia, appointed under an Act of 1875, by which he was invested with exceptional and remarkable privileges for dealing with offences committed in that quarter. The Attorney General said that offences committed by Natives against Europeans did not come within that Act. They did not; neither did they come within any other provisions of law. But Sir Arthur Gordon—the highest authority on such a point—was of opinion that such offences would be better dealt with by him, with all the knowledge at his disposal, than in the manner adopted in this instance. The Attorney General had gone at some length into the question of who was to blame. Now, he thought that what the House had to do was to look at the facts, and see whether
  1194
  something had been done that was blameworthy; and, if that were so, it was for the Government to find the persons who were to bear the blame. The facts showed that there was censurable matter in that case. It was contended that the commander of a British ship had power to enforce by acts of war redress for acts committed against British subjects. But in the Pacific Islands Act there was a clause which, in spite of the power conferred on British officers, declared that nothing contained therein or in any Order in Council should be construed to invest Her Majesty with any title whatever to dominion or sovereignty over such places, in derogation of the rights of the Native Chiefs or Rulers to such sovereignty and dominion. Great care was taken at the passing of that Act to prevent anything like colour being given to the notion that we had a right to deal with the people of those Islands in a totally different way from that in which we dealt with other parts of the world. The Attorney General spoke of an act of war having been done in that case; but he must have used that expression in quite a technical sense, and not in the sense in which a plain man would use it. That, however, had nothing to do with the matter before the House. He would confine himself to the facts as they appeared on the Paper, and was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had relied on picked and selected portions of the evidence of certain parties when their evidence was contradictory, and on the confession of the man himself who had been executed. The only evidence on which Nokwai was hanged was his own, to the effect that he saw the shot fired by his brother, and that if his brother's gun had failed he would have used his own, he having already stated that he had no gun. In the absence of Papers, he would also point out that there was no evidence to show that the murders of British subjects spoken of had occurred to anything like the extent which was supposed. The testimony of the missionaries, on the contrary, he ventured to think, would be found to be that the murders which were committed were connected with attempts to kidnap the Islanders for the purpose of sending them into slavery. As to the taking of hostages in the indiscriminate way in which Lieutenant

  1195
  Caffin had done, it was worthy of remark that there was no perceptible connection between those hostages and the crime which it was sought to punish; nor was it shown that they had the murderer in any sense within their control. The man, he might add, who was actually hanged, stated in his examination that he had no gun with him, although, having been very severely cross-examined, he said he had one, and upon such evidence as that he was put to death. Those facts, he thought, showed clearly that we had hanged a man who, under similar circumstances, would never have been put to death here or in any civilized country with which he was acquainted. He would, then, ask the House with confidence, whether they regarded the reply of the Attorney General as satisfactory, and whether they did not think that the Government, without being urged by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham, ought to have placed before them the evidence which was necessary to a complete review of the case? In the absence of such information, he could not believe that any man could read this account without a feeling of horror at what had occurred. The strongest opinion upon it had been expressed by those persons who had the greatest acquaintance with Polynesia. Admiral Erskine entertained a very strong opinion upon it, and with regard to an even higher authority—Sir Arthur Gordon—he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) challenged the Government to lay his despatch upon the Table.
  SIR HENRY JAMESdeclined to follow the Attorney General through his very long analysis of the facts or to discuss the question of whether Lieutenant Caffin was right or wrong; but he contended that that officer ought never to have been placed in the position in which he found himself of being driven to execute the man in question, whether upon sufficient or insufficient evidence. Our representatives abroad ought not to be called upon to execute summary justice in the protection of the lives or property of British subjects. As for the Attorney General, he appeared, from an answer which he had given to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) on the 28th of January last, to have once entertained a very different opinion on the question from that which he had maintained that
  1196
  evening, and he would ask the Government whether they took the view that when a court was held under the British flag, a trial took place, and a man was executed, it was a modified mode of levying war, which was the ground upon which the act was justified by the Attorney General? But he would appeal to a despatch of the Board of Admiralty on the subject, in which it was stated that it would be desirable that the Chiefs themselves should inflict punishment on the perpetrators of those outrages; that such a course would be likely to have a more deterrent influence and be less objectionable than the punishment of Natives on board Her Majesty's ships. It had sometimes been said that the Government threw over the Attorney General; but the hon. and learned Gentleman had his revenge, for he had now thrown over the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) received scant courtesy at the hands of the Attorney General, who to his opponents was usually extremely courteous, on the ground, probably, that being a supporter of the Government he had no right to express his opinion if it were contrary to that entertained by the Government. The Attorney General said that everything had been done which ought to have been done; but it had occurred to some people that it would have been much better that the person by whom the murder was committed should have been executed rather than the half-proved accomplice, and, as the Admiralty said—"It would have been better if the execution had taken place on shore instead of on board the Queen's ship." That was what the Admiralty said, and the independent supporters of the Government were therefore placed in the somewhat disagreeable dilemma of either agreeing with the Attorney General and differing from the First Lord of the Admiralty, or agreeing with the latter and differing from the former. That was not a pleasant alternative for the hon. and gallant Admiral the Member for Stirlingshire (Sir William Edmonstone) to have put before him. He denied that this really was an attack on the Government—it merely called on the House to express an opinion that more distinct and definite as well as just regulations should be issued to the commanders of vessels on the coasts of semi-barbarous States, and they

  1197
  should not be required to act in these cases entirely on their own discretion.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)maintained that there was no contradiction whatever between the speech of the Attorney General and the despatch of the Admiralty. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had omitted to refer to the words "when practicable" contained in that despatch; and it was clear that, in the present case, it would have been impracticable to carry out the instructions given in that despatch. Objection had been taken to the execution of the man on the ground that he was not the actual murderer; but the facts of the case clearly showed that the person hanged had been guilty of murder either by his own personal act or by "aiding, assisting, or comforting" the actual murderer. In every civilized community, persons who aided others to commit murder were regarded in the same light and punished as the actual murderers. With regard to the question of the evidence on the subject, he observed that hon. Members sought to very much undervalue the intelligence of the Native who was hanged, and it had been alleged that he was half-witted. He (the Solicitor General) arrived at a totally different conclusion from the mode in which those statements of his were given, and from the manner in which he afterwards explained what were the full facts; and those statements being true on the face of them, the Native decidedly and strongly implicated himself in the murder. It had been alleged that the murdered man had been engaged in some intrigue; but even if that were so, it would not justify the injured husband in employing two assassins to murder the adulterer. The statement of the man who was hanged proved that he had been present and had taken part in the murder. If Lieutenant Caffin had not taken the punishment of this man into his own hands, he would have been compelled to let him go free, because there was no local tribunal before which to send him for trial, and it would have been useless to expect the Natives to take any part in bringing the man to justice. There was no tribunal in this country that would have had jurisdiction to try him had the offender been brought over here. According to the statement of the mis-
  1198
  sionary, this was the tenth case of the murder of a British subject under somewhat similar circumstances; and what was done was a military act under military authority in self-preservation. It was just because there was no tribunal to try cases of this sort that the law allowed military officers to interfere and say these crimes should not be committed with impunity. Even in warfare amongst civilized nations it was necessary occasionally to have recourse to reprisals which, under some circumstances, were justifiable; and he could not see therefore why, in dealing with savage tribes, greater accuracy should be observed in such matters as murder. In this case the lieutenant in command appeared to have properly performed his difficult and responsible duty—namely, that of protecting the lives of the Englishmen in the vicinity.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreminded the House that the Motion was that an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that instructions might be issued defining the course to be adopted in cases of this kind. How did the Attorney General meet the Motion? By saying that there was no need of instructions, because everything that had been done was perfectly right, and he justified this affair in omnibus. They had a discussion last year about the Huascar at the end of the Session, and the Attorney General got up and treated the case in the same way and with the same arguments. He said—"This is a case of making war." He seemed to have a notion that Her Majesty's vessels went about all over the globe making war every day whether Her Majesty had declared war or not, and therefore we were not to be surprised at what had happened. It was not the custom of one member of the Bar to say of a brother barrister, as the Attorney General had done of the hon. and learned Member opposite, that he had acted like a County Court attorney; but the Attorney General did that in order to secure a Party cheer from those behind him. In a few weeks after the Attorney General had used last year, in the case of the Huascar, the same argument as he had used in this, about levying war, the Lords of the Admiralty wrote a despatch giving by no means the same kind of approval as the Attorney General had given of the transaction. And

  1199
  in this case, also, the Lords of the Admiralty had written a despatch in which they said they trusted this example would produce the intended effect; but they desired that, in. future cases, the punishment should if possible be inflicted by the Native Chiefs, as the effect would be more deterrent, and that course would be less objectionable. They also urged the necessity of the greatest caution in dealing with the Natives, which meant that they did not think the greatest caution was exercised in this case. The despatch of the Admiralty plainly indicated a preference for other courses than those which had been adopted in the present case; and he thought, therefore, instructions ought to be issued for the guidance of officers in future.
  SIR JOHN HAYthought that the despatch of the Admiralty, which, for the first time in the course of the debate, had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), ran on all fours with the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and therefore no advantage could be gained by pressing his Motion to a division. He believed that the despatch was greatly wanted, and he hoped it would be widely circulated throughout Her Majesty's Navy. He expressed his great regret that one of Her Majesty's ships should have been turned into a perambulating gallows, and that so objectionable a duty as that of carrying out an execution for an offence not committed on board a ship should have been imposed on a commissioned officer of the Queen; but, at the same time, he fully acquitted Lieutenant Caffin of any blame. He was glad that by the publication of the Admiralty despatch the recurrence of such a scene as that which had been witnessed on board the Beagle would be prevented. With all respect to the hon. and learned Attorney General, he could not admit that the rope and the gallows were engines of war. Sinking, burning, and destroying were legitimate operations against an enemy of the country; but to take a man on board one of Her Majesty's ships and to hang him at the yard-arm seemed to him far from creditable to Her Majesty's Navy. He would rather have seen a crowd of Natives fired upon and Nokwai and others, including even innocent people, killed by the legitimate methods of war-
  1200
  fare than that such a deed as that which was done on board the Beagle should have been committed. [Murmurs.] Yes, he repeated, he would rather have seen that man and others defending him executed by the proper engines of war than that the rope and the gallows should have been put into the hands of a commanding officer of Her Majesty's Navy.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURthought it was simply horrible, that military and naval officers should be called upon to perform such duties as those of hanging Natives of the Islands for crimes of the ordinary kind, so frequently occurring when Europeans, without the control of their own Government, settled in those Islands; and when they had performed the odious orders issued by their superior naval officer, that their names should be mentioned in the House of Commons and held up before the people of England as those of men who had in themselves done that which was wrong. Lieutenant Caffin should not be censured, for he had simply carried out a disgusting duty, which, in the position he occupied, he was bound to perform by the orders of his commander. He thought there was great reason to complain of the uncertainty in which both military and naval officers were left as to the manner in which they should administer justice on foreign service. The hon. and learned Attorney General had, on a former occasion, referred to the rights and powers possessed by a General in the field, of acting under Martial Law. But it was an entire misapprehension as to this power being legally exercised without the law being declared. No doubt, as the Duke of Wellington stated in the debate on the Martial Law question, which Lord Torrington had declared in Ceylon, the Law Martial was only the will of the General; but that will must be declared, in order that all who offended the Law may know the consequences. Then, as regarded the mode of putting that Law in force, or rather of carrying out the inquiry and punishments—these also must be declared by the General. But then the officer must be in military possession of the territory within which the Law Martial is to operate. He must have all the rights of temporary sovereignty over the people and territory, and thereby be entitled to declare and enforce the new laws which might be

  1201
  necessary to be established. He remembered well the difficulty experienced in China, in regard to punishing Chinese who offended against the rights which General Sir Hugh Gough possessed by being in military occupation of Ningho and territory adjacent. But the late Earl of Derby, at that time Secretary of State for the Colonies, and holding also the Seals of Office as Secretary for War, sent out instructions to Sir Hugh Gough to declare Martial Law, to give warning thereof to the people, and to announce to the Chinese Commander in the neighbourhood of the determination to enforce that Law. This was a methodical and regular course to follow. It was simply substituting for the Civil and Criminal Law of China another law by the new possessor of the district. That law, though promptly applied, did yet possess some degree of formality and legality. It was owing to ignorance of what officials in military possession of, and in command of, territory were to do when in the field, that caused so many serious difficulties; and, seeing how frequently military officers were so situated, he urged that full instructions should be issued to them on that head, not by any Department, but by the Government. He might also mention that in the evidence given before the Select Committee on the affairs of Ceylon, there was excellent evidence given by Sir Charles Dundas—then either Solicitor General or Judge Advocate General— on the subject of Martial Law. It would be a great and good service to the Military Service, if the Government adopted the clear and useful evidence there recorded, and worked the whole into an instruction for the guidance of both naval and military officers. Until this was done we must expect to have many such horrid irregularities as had been brought to light in this debate.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, so far as his experience went, when Papers were moved for it was understood that they should be furnished as fully and completely as the circumstances of the case admitted. He was not aware that in the present case there were any Papers whatever which could have been produced, but which had not been. He was informed by his right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary that no hon. Member had moved for the despatches of Sir Arthur Gordon, to which refer-
  1202
  ence had been made, and that he was perfectly ready to present them if it was the desire of the House. The House would see that Commodore Hoskins was set in motion in the matter by the Consul, that the Consul, in turn, was set in motion by the missionaries, and that the instructions were given, not in consequence of the death of Easterbrook alone, but in consequence of 10 White men having been killed within the nine years during which the missionaries resided in the Island, without any step being taken to bring the perpetrators to justice. His hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) asked whether those 10 men had not been more or less concerned in kidnapping? He had no knowledge as to that; but from the fact that Mr. Neilson gave that information to Lieutenant Caffin, and brought it so strongly before the Commodore and the Consul, it was thought, at all events, to be necessary that some steps should be taken to punish unjustifiable murders. The murder of Easterbrook was said to have been committed with less compunction from the idea existing in the minds of the Natives that such crimes could be perpetrated with impunity, seeing that there had been 10 murders committed during Mr. Neilson's residence of nine years in the Island, without anything being done to punish the murderers. The Papers stated that the steps which had been taken in the present case, including the execution, had created a profound impression among the Natives, and, according to Mr. Neilson's idea, a lasting one. He would not follow hon. and learned Gentlemen on both sides of the House into the question whether or not that was a legal act. He preferred to ask the House what ought to be done under the circumstances of the case? The Admiralty had already expressed their opinion as to the course which ought to be pursued. They had done so in plain language, not desiring to censure an officer placed in a position of extreme difficulty, who had felt it to be his duty to execute his orders, nor even to censure those who had given him his orders. The Admiralty had no additional information of the circumstances of the case, which had rendered it necessary that those orders should be given, nor of the circumstances under which the 10 murders to which reference had been made had

  1203
  been committed. But they had stated frankly, not only to the officers whose conduct was now in question, but to the whole Service—because that document was in possession of every officer in the Service, and especially on the Australian Station — the course which it was their duty to pursue under similar circumstances. No doubt, it would be very much to the honour and advantage of the Service if the instructions now given by the Admiralty could be strictly and carefully observed. He had no reason to suppose that they would not be so observed, and he was satisfied that they would be found to be sufficient for the purpose. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Sir Henry James) suggested that the Government should undertake to issue Orders defining the circumstances and conditions under which officers of the Army and Navy should exercise the great powers intrusted to them; and he had pointed to the fact that those powers had not been defined in the time of the late Duke of Wellington, who was of opinion that they should be defined. Now, if those questions had been more or less in debate for some 60 or 70 years, it would, he thought, be a rash act if he were to undertake, on behalf of the Government, at a moment's notice, to define the circumstances under which officers of the Army or Navy should exercise the powers intrusted to them. Those officers discharge their duties under great responsibility, and must exercise a great discretion; but they were as much under the law of the land as other persons. They were quite conscious of that; and he believed that, on the whole, they performed their duty not only with a view to the interests of their country, but with a view to the interests of humanity at large. They were generally, he believed, as careful of the lives of those who were called savages as they were of the honour, property, and the lives of Englishmen. Those officers protected, and were at this moment protecting, the lives and property of savages who had no power to protect themselves against persons who really were outlaws, although they loved the name of Englishmen. To tie their hands more than they were at present tied would tend to produce consequences far more serious than had occurred in that case. While, then, he regretted what had happened, he was
  1204
  not prepared to censure the two officers concerned, or to say that under all the circumstances they were absolutely wrong in what they had done. They had been placed in a position of great difficulty; and when, acting on their responsibility, they had done what they believed to be best and right, he could not agree to a Motion which really amounted to a Vote of Censure, and which asked the Government to adopt a proceeding which was, he thought, surrounded with difficulty and danger. Referring to a remark of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), he must observe that he could not admit that the Admiralty had cast any censure upon Admiral de Horsey, commanding on the Pacific Station. In conclusion, he hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham would not persevere with his Motion. If it was pressed to a division, he should be obliged to vote against it.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he would refrain from troubling the House with a speech, because the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was the true authority on that subject, and was at variance upon it with the Attorney General, had conceded in the main what was desired. He therefore joined in requesting the hon. and learned Member for Chatham to withdraw his proposal.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would not press his Motion to a division. He hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would take care that his despatch was communicated to all the officers of the Fleet.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT(who spoke amid much interruption from Members on his own side of the House) said, he was quite aware that, after so long a discussion, the House was impatient for its termination; but having waited for some hours for an opportunity of saying a few words, and wishing to advert to a point in the case which had not been alluded to by preceding speakers, he hoped the House would allow him to make a remark or two very briefly, and he assured hon. Members who were impatient to go away at that hour (8 P.M.) that he would detain them but a very short time. What he wished to observe was that, in the present case, the officers on the station in the South Seas had followed the instructions of the judicial and legal authorities at Sydney. Not long before, two Natives of the Soloman Islands, having com-

  1205
  mitted an atrocious murder, were taken in custody on board one of Her Majesty's ships to Sydney, and there tried in the High Court. They were acquitted on the ground that the offence had been committed out of the British Possessions, and by persons who were not British subjects. Sir George Innes, the Attorney General, being subsequently applied to by the Commander of the South Seas Station, as to how he should act in another case, replied in a letter, which was to be found in the Blue Book now before the House, that as it was useless to attempt to try such offenders according to law, the Commander must exercise his own discretion in punishing outrages of this nature. Had there been time, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) should have been glad to refer to the cases which seemed to form a precedent for the conduct of Lieutenant Caffin. But, as it was, he would only add that, looking to those cases, and also to the facts surrounding the present case, acting under orders, as he was, from his superior officer, must be acquitted of any blame whatever. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had made strictures upon the execution of the brother of the man who had actually fired the shot, and seemed to imply that his offence was of a less grave character; but he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) fully corroborated his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, that one who stood by with an offensive weapon—for he admitted he carried his club—and gave countenance to murder, was equally guilty with the principal, as a participator in his crime. He would not detain the House longer, but he considered that Lieutenant Caffin had entirely done his duty under the circumstances.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  INDIA (FINANCES) — INDIAN EXCHANGES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrose to call attention to the excessive loss in the Indian Exchanges, and to ask if, now that the United States have definitely made silver a legal tender, Her Majesty's Government will consider whether it may be possible to establish equivalent silver coinages in the great silver-using countries; and will also consider whether, by putting more silver in the rupee, the commercial and monetary disturbance
  1206
  caused by the depreciation of silver might at the same time be remedied; and, in the interests of India if not of England also, will send a delegate to the Conference proposed by the United States? The hon. Member said that he could not approach the question as an expert, and, indeed, there were very few experts on the subject of the currency not agreed about anything whatever; but the question was one on which common sense might be exercised. The question involved matters of enormous interest to this country, if not directly, at any rate, with reference to India, and he trusted that he should not be thought out of place in directing the attention of the House to it even at this late period of the Session. It was altogether beyond dispute that silver had of late been very greatly depreciated, and that the Indian silver rupee had deteriorated to the extent of 15 per cent at least. With the exception of ourselves, all the great silver-using countries of the world had taken special precautions against the enormous change in the value of that metal; while England, as mistress of India, holding what he might call excessive Free Trade doctrines, had simply allowed things to take their course. Germany had adopted the radical plan of changing her currency from silver to gold; the countries of the Latin union had strictly limited the coinage of silver. In America silver had been made a legal tender, but the quantity of silver to be coined was restricted and regulated so as to prevent a glut. We alone had taken no action in the matter, and the disturbance had, therefore, fallen with accumulated force on us. The present loss was certainly not loss than 15 per cent. and that on Government remittances alone was fully £3,000,000 per annum; while the Manchester trade with India suffered in the same way with all other private interests. The evil being evident, he came to the question of the remedy to be applied. In his opinion, the Secretary of State was quite right in not yielding to panic and suddenly changing the Indian coinage from silver to gold, which, he believed, would very much aggravate the evil; but he regretted that the Secretary of State had not taken the same precautions as had been taken in all other civilized countries, in regard to restricting the silver issue under

  1207
  special and peculiar circumstances, and that in India some measure had not been taken whereby a certain appreciation or increase of value might have been given to the rupee. The restrictions of the coinage could only be regarded as a temporary measure; but as a temporary measure, he believed it was one which would be found serviceable, and which might reasonably be recommended in view of the more permanent settlement to which he hoped the Government would contribute by accepting the invitation to the Conference proposed by the United States, and about to assemble at Paris. The measures adopted in France would be very suitable to the state of things existing in India. The adoption of a bi-metallic currency by the great silver-using countries, if it could be brought about at the forthcoming Silver Congress, would be of immense advantage in steadying monetary operations. As a layman, he was bound to say that there appeared to him to be a good deal of force in the arguments of those who supported the bimetallic theory of currency; and though he fully admitted that we could not adopt it in this country, yet he thought a bimetallic standard would work great good for India. What he wished the Government of India to do was to stop coining rupees till the value of the existing rupee was raised, and then, as soon as the market admitted of it, to coin rupees containing more silver than at present, so as to be of the value of the American half-dollar. The French might then be induced to assimilate the five-franc piece to the dollar. A uniform currency would thus be established over a large part of the world. As regarded gold, he thought America might meet us by putting a little less gold into the five-dollar piece, so as to make it equal to our sovereign. If these changes could be effected, the disturbance of values in India would be remedied by a simple and self-acting process, to which there would be no just objection.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, no one could doubt the importance of the subject introduced by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. That importance was, as he truly said, recognized by the House when it appointed, two years ago, a Committee to consider the depreciation in the value of silver—a Committee which was presided over, with more than ordinary
  1208
  ability, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen). That Committee, of which he (Mr. Cave) was a Member, was appointed in consequence of the unfavourable effect produced on Indian exchanges by the serious fall in the price of silver. They went carefully into the causes of this depreciation, and, after long inquiry, came to the conclusion that it was due chiefly to the enormous production of silver by the mines of Virginia County, in the State of California, and from the demonetization of silver, or, rather, the substitution of gold for silver as the standard of value, in Germany, in the Scandinavian Kingdoms, and in the four countries of the Latin Convention. That depreciation was checked by the absorption of large quantities of silver by various countries, and especially by France. If, however, as appeared probable, that absorption should be temporary, or become greatly diminished, and the yield of the American mines continued at anything like the same rate, it seemed imminent that the depreciation would be still more serious. So far, he was quite in accord with the hon. Member. He agreed, also, that this depreciation had affected, and must affect, the Indian exchanges. At the same time, these exchanges were affected still more by the large remittances made in bills from India, either sent home by the greatly enlarged European Army, or in payment of Home Charges, which had so seriously increased on account of the augmented quantity of stores sent to India from England. The hon. Member proposed to rectify that state of things, which was, doubtless, extremely embarrassing, by, as far as he could understand, coining a new rupee, which should contain a larger amount of silver than the present rupee. But surely that was a very curious prescription—to remedy a fall in the price of silver by lowering its value! Certainly that was so. He would put it in another way, which the hon. Member would acknowledge, at once, to be accurate. Here was the Indian Coinage Act of 1870. He found this enactment in Sections 4 and 7—"The gold mohur is to be worth 15 rupees, of 180 grains each." Supposing the hon. Member added 20 grains to each rupee, and left the gold mohur still worth 15 rupees, did he not debase the silver? He did not debase the coin, of course; but he

  1209
  debased the metal of which the coin was composed. By his plan, the same quantity of gold would purchase a larger quantity of silver. If he altered the gold coin in proportion, of course, he simply did nothing. He (Mr. Cave) made these remarks on the supposition that we had a double standard in India. Practically, we knew that there gold was merely bullion, and that, at the present moment, very much more than 15 rupees must be given for the gold mohur. In fact, it was impossible for legislation to alter the real value of bullion except to a very limited extent, and for a short time, and under very despotic Governments. No one knew better than the hon. Member that there were various rupees of the same nominal value in India at the present moment, and that sicca rupees, and especially the old sicca rupees, sold at a premium; that, in fact, they had practically ceased to be coin, they had become bullion; otherwise the least valuable must always drive out the more valuable which disappeared. When Sir Ralph Woodford was Governor of Trinidad, silver dollars were exported to an inconvenient extent. To remedy this evil he stamped a small bit out of each dollar, and made a decree that it should be of the same value as before. What happened? The price of all commodities rose in proportion, and then the dollar was exported as before. If they could call in all the present rupees, and recoin them, at an enormous expense, with a larger proportion of silver, they would make a present to the creditor and rob the taxpayer; and if they tried to remedy this untoward result by fractional compensation, they would cause immense trouble, and still greater knavery, discontent, and suspicion, of which there was an example in Bengal in 1835. They had something of the same kind in England, and, indeed, had it still in money of account, as it was still, in many instances, uncertain whether a guinea meant 20 s. or 21 s. The hon. Member proposed to limit the coinage, and instanced Trance. Doubtless France had managed well. The Bank of France had been admirably conducted. There was no limit to the issue of paper before the late war; but it was convertible, and always at par. It was at par still, because the people had faith in the Bank and in the enormous stock of bullion
  1210
  contained in it. But when the hon. Member talked of limiting the coinage of silver, it was rather inconsistent to propose at the same time to increase it, because there was no difference between adding 20 grains to the existing rupee and coining a rupee and one-ninth, where they now coined one rupee. Well, then, the hon. Member proposed to issue an international silver coin which should circulate all over the world, fly out like the dove from the Ark and never come back; which, when not wanted in one country as a medium of exchange, should not be melted down, but escape to another country where it was wanted. There had been many International Conferences on this subject. In London, in 1860, there was one under the late lamented Prince Consort, at which he (Mr. Cave) was present. There were also Conferences in Berlin and in Paris. In 1868, a Royal Commission was appointed under the Presidency of Lord Halifax, of which he had the honour of being a Member. It was a very strong Commission, and it had gone very carefully into all the points in question, many of which were those which the hon. Member had touched upon. After a protracted inquiry, they reported in favour of other nations adopting our system, an invitation to which none, not even Germany and the United States, with every advantage of a new point of departure, had responded. Two points, however, came out very clearly in the course of the investigations—namely, that it would be extremely difficult to secure the equal purity of all international coins. He understood, indeed, that a difficulty of this kind had occurred in consequence of the late Pope issuing francs of the same nominal value and appearance, but of less intrinsic value than the franc of the Latin Union. This was one difficulty. Another was that similar coins would be of little use without uniformity in monies of account and in weights and measures. There was an enormous difference between the countries in which silver was only a token and in which it was itself a standard of value. The Americans had lately coined two dollars of different values; but one was for a foreign trade for the special purpose of competing with foreign coins, and did not touch the question. Moreover, he believed the experiment had not suc-

  1211
  ceeded. In the Silver Committee they learnt that many parts of India were without silver, and hopes were held out that those districts might in time exchange their barbarous trade of barter for a more civilized system, which would extend the use of silver. It had also been mentioned that the depreciation of silver would naturally cause an increased export trade from India and other countries with a silver currency, and, at the same time, a diminished import to them, which would tend to cause a demand for silver to pay the balance, and so would check depreciation. It might, however, come to this—that the question of an altered standard might become urgent. It would be extremely inconvenient to alter a system long in existence, and deeply rooted in the feelings and habits of the people. Still, no doubt, the time might come when the question of an altered standard must be faced. But, whatever might happen, he trusted that a double standard might not be adopted as a compromise. The hon. Member hoped that we might accept the invitation of America to a bi-metallic Conference. He was happy to say that invitation had been accepted. There could be no harm in discussion, and he had every confidence in our own delegates; but he hoped that the Conference would not fail to remember that a double standard must be a variable standard, and that it was almost impossible to have the coins of two standards in circulation at once. In the reign of James I., there was a double standard in this country, and at one time gold rose in value and almost disappeared. Proclamations were made from time to time, with the hope of fixing the value of gold so as to avoid this extremely awkward result. Later in the same Reign, gold was over valued and silver disappeared in its turn, to the much greater inconvenience of the country. In spite of what had been said by the hon. Member, his humble opinion was that the Government of the country should, for obvious reasons, retain control over the currency of the country; that there could not be absolute free trade in currency; but that Government should confine itself, speaking generally, to the prevention of fraud and forgery; and that any attempt by ingenious contrivances to interfere with the ordinary operations of trade and with the laws of
  1212
  supply and demand, or to deal artificially and arbitrarily with matters of finance was sure, sooner or later, to end in error and disaster.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobserved, that as his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had raised the silver question, and had suggested that he (General Sir George Balfour) might usefully say a few words on this subject, he readily assented, but with this warning—that it was such a difficult question to discuss, that even the ablest Members of the House had reluctantly taken up the subject. But he would try and mention some points which had hitherto failed to be set forth. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) had even overlooked the remarkable way in which coinage of silver currency in India had been diminished, and the necessity for importing silver into India lessened. He therefore remarked that only a few years ago the silver coin in circulation in India had been averaged at between £180,000,000 and £200,000,000 sterling. This was based on the experience of Sir Thomas Seccombe, the able Financial Secretary. Since then, the Under Secretary of State had announced in that House that the silver circulation had been reduced to £100,000,000 sterling, showing a falling off of £70,000,000 or £80,000,000 sterling. He had tried to get the data upon which that falling-off had been based, but was not able. There was some difficulty in the matter. It was to be regretted that such hindrances were raised. He would now explain one cause for such a diminution in the silver coin; and as he was in Calcutta when paper money was introduced by the late Mr. Wilson, and had since watched the experiment with great interest, he might be excused for stating that the note circulation was greatly limited by the restrictions then placed on the right to cash the notes. It was a failure for several years; but the change which his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney (Mr. Laing) introduced had a great effect, and the paper circulation sprang from £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 to £12,000,000, and sometimes £14,000,000 of a permanent issue— that was, the amount of notes usually in actual circulation on any given date. But that was not a true mode of look-

  1213
  ing at the effect which paper notes had caused. All acquainted with India well knew the former vast store of silver coin in existence, owing to the great difficulty of sending it from one place to another. From time immemorial the Military Forces were employed in a most harassing way to escort silver coin. Indeed, the Mutiny of the 3rd Regiment of Bengal Cavalry, which began the Mutiny at Meerut, was mainly caused by the exorbitant pressure for treasure escorts. The great tendency was for silver coin to get into out-of-the-way places—Dacca, for instance, was a place for accumulating coin—and those it was not easy to get it away from. But the note circulation had changed the conditions; debts were now easily adjusted by notes. More than that, Government had largely extended the facilities for cashing notes. Indeed, the Government had specially created notes of 10,000 rupees to facilitate those adjustments; and Government had also created a five-rupee note. Under these facilities, coin was no longer needed; so that, besides the paper money in circulation, an amount of between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 sterling annually passed through the Government Offices. The noble Lord's calculation that the circulation of silver was about £100,000,000 was probably true; and, therefore, we had been economizing the use of silver coin. The money required for actual use having greatly diminished, the surplus of £70,000,000 or £100,000,000 of silver coin had been used up for silver ornaments. There were, probably, 180,000,000 of people — women and children—in the whole of India expected to have ornaments; and, as his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) could testify, not one of them ever went out without silver ornaments and bangles, and the lowest value of each would be £1, and lately more probably £2, as the wealth of the country had increased. The Paymaster General would allow that the wear and tear of that silver, worn as ornaments to the extent of only £300,000,000, would justify him in saying that £30,000,000 every year might be a fair estimate to make of the silver required to make up those values, and no doubt the silver needed had been mainly taken from the coin. It was, however, to be feared that the decrease of coin had been carried too far;
  1214
  because, in many parts of India, the people experienced a positive want of coin to exchange for produce, and they were obliged to carry on their business transactions by means of shells. This was a state of things most discreditable to the Government. The abolition of the Madras Mint, by stopping the production of small coins, such as two-anna and four-anna pieces, had led to a great deal of inconvenience among the people. With regard to the raising of the value of the rupee, which his hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy proposed, that was a matter beyond him. The currency doctors who had meddled with these things had always been pronounced mad, and he did not wish to interfere with them. He recommended the Government to tax the Bengal landholders, who were now so greatly favoured, in contrast with the heavy pressure of the land tax in other parts of India, and they would fall upon a new mine of wealth. The proposition of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), he frankly confessed, was beyond his ken, but he was satisfied that it demanded consideration at the hands of Government.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that the subject was an extremely interesting one, and he was not surprised that the hon. Member (Sir George Campbell), who was so familiar with Indian affairs, should be much exercised by any evil which would detract from the prosperity of that great portion of the Empire, and anxious to suggest a practical remedy. The evil was easily explained. In India there was a silver standard and a silver coinage. The Revenue was payable in silver; but there were public obligations to be met—in connection with railways and other things—in gold; and, therefore, the country had to sacrifice a larger proportion of its silver revenue in order to discharge these golden obligations. The same difficulty had arisen in other countries; but there was no real remedy, because the moment they interfered with the standard of value they gave an advantage to either the debtor or the creditor. The hon. Member was not wrong in stating the difference at 15 per cent— it was fully that. There was a time within the last quarter of a century, when this country might have introduced in India a gold coinage in substitution for

  1215
  that of silver without the slightest injury to existing obligations, public or private, because the value of silver was then fully apreciated; but the opportunity was then lost, and has never recurred. The Committee which sat upon this subject after a most careful and exhaustive inquiry was unable to suggest a remedy; because, in fact, there was no remedy. With regard to the Paris Congress, to be held at the instance of the United States, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say the Government proposed to send a Representative to that Congress. If so, he hoped that Representative would be instructed to listen and not to speak; for it would be deplorable if any representative of England were to countenance the idea that she could entertain the adoption of a double standard. An international system of currency was not necessary for the freedom of commerce. For perfect freedom of commerce we wanted nothing more than we had got—free exports, free imports, and the power of paying for whatever we had in gold and silver; and he could not admit as either practical or useful the proposition of the hon. Member to increase the size of the rupee, and call it a rupee still.

  TURKEY — SLAVERY.— WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked leave to withdraw a Notice which he had placed on the Paper, and which now, owing to the close of the Congress, had become an anachronism. It was a Motion for an Address to Her Majesty praying Her to instruct Her Plenipotentiaries at Berlin to move the Congress in completion of the action taken by the Congresses of Vienna and Verona with respect to the Slave Trade, to adopt a declaration—
  "That the existence of slavery as a recognized institution being repugnant to modern civilization, any State that permits it is thereby disqualified from taking equal rank with other Members of the European family of nations."
  It had been no fault of his that he had not been afforded an opportunity of bringing this matter forward. A deputation went to Berlin for the purpose of pressing this matter on the different Plenipotentiaries, and all the Plenipotentiaries whom they saw agreed very much with their views, but
  1216
  thought that England ought to take the initiative. The question was then brought before the British Plenipotentiaries; but they did not take the initiative. He did not, on this occasion, wish to introduce any matter of controversy, so he would content himself with saying that this inaction on the part of the British Plenipotentiaries, whatever might have been their motive, was a matter of great regret to very many people in England. He trusted, however, that in the quasi - Protectorate which we had assumed in Asia Minor the Government would bear in mind that it was not only the traditional policy of England to get rid of slavery and the slave trade all over the world; but that there could be no doubt many of the greatest evils in the present system of Government in Turkey would be cut at the root by the abolition of domestic slavery. By putting an end to that they would put an end to the means whereby the seclusion of women was enforced, and the seclusion of women was the prolific source of intrigues and corruption in the administration of the Turkish Government. The hon. Member concluded by withdrawing his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  LAW AND JUSTICE —APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATES.—WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION.
  MR. HUTCHINSONsaid, he did not intend to persevere with the Motion which he had placed upon the Paper, which was to the following effect: —
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her commands may be signified to those responsible for the recommendation of persons to be appointed justices of the peace, that considerations of party politics or religious creed should be wholly disregarded in their selection."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he sympathized with the views of the hon. Member, and could assure him that the subject should receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In the county he (Mr. Assheton Cross) represented, Lord Derby and Lord Winmarleigh and himself had endeavoured to have these appointments kept free from political influence; and although in that county the Chancellor of the Duchy had previously made the appointments, they

  1217
  were now made by the Lord Lieutenant. They thought the Lord Lieutenant much less likely to be influenced by political motives, and he hoped the result they anticipated would be realized, not only in that county, but in other counties of England.

THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—PERAK.

  QUESTIONS.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the organization of the police forces maintained in Perak, Salangore, and Sungei Ujong, the number of their men, the terms of their engagement, the scales of pay, and the official costume are not all matters under the immediate regulation of the Governor of the Straits Settlements? Whether those forces are not under the orders of the local British Resident, and whether the officers who hold commands in them are not appointed by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies? With whom does it rest to dismiss a member of those forces for misconduct? Are the public revenues in each of the above States collected by the British Resident and his subordinates; and is not the taxation regulated by him, subject to the control of the Straits Government at Singapore? Is not justice administered by British officers, under the supervision of the Resident? Are not public works in the above States all designed, sanctioned, and executed by and under the supervision of the British Residents, subject to the control and approval of the Governor of the Straits Settlements? Do the British Residents report to and correspond with the Governor of the Straits at Singapore? If not, do they do so with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or what is the machinery for supervising their policy and proceedings? Are the public accounts for each of those States audited; if so, by whom; and is the Audit Office at Singapore used for this purpose? Whether slavery has been or is about to be abolished in the States mentioned; if not, then what are the reasons which have led the British Residents, while taking over the administration of the revenue and justice, the control of the police, and of public works, to leave the question of slavery out of account? Have instructions been given
  1218
  to the newly-organized police force never to interfere to re-capture fugitive slaves; before what tribunal would a claim to a re-captured slave be tried; and what provisions have been made to protect the slave in such a case from being tortured and punished for the mere attempt to escape?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he must reply to the Questions of the hon. Baronet on imperfect information; but he believed the statements he should make would be found accurate as far as they went. With reference to the control of the police force, he thought it was practically controlled by the Residents, subject to the superior authority of the Governor of the Straits Settlements; but the officers were not appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The British Resident collected the revenue of each State and regulated the taxation. Justice was not administered solely by British officers under supervision of the Resident, but by the Native Judges in conjunction with the Resident. The accounts were audited first by the Resident, but were subject to further audit by the Government of the Straits Settlements. He (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) quite understood the object of the Questions as to slavery. The intention was first to suggest that the control of the Residents over the police, the administration of justice, and of public works, amounted to the entire government of these States, and then to argue that the Residents should also control questions connected with slavery. He could not quite admit the premise, for in various matters to which he could refer the authority of the Residents did not amount to supreme control. With regard to slavery, however, he felt the importance of this subject, into which he intended to inquire fully with the view of seeing what could be done; but it did not follow that though the Native Rulers of these States were willing to intrust other affairs to the practical control of the Residents, they would be equally prepared to sanction interference with matters of such extreme delicacy and difficulty as those connected with domestic slavery. Any hasty attempt at such interference might result in the impossibility of continuing the Resident system, and in the consequent loss of our influence. The Government must act cautiously in these

  1219
  matters, but the subject would not escape his attention.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, Whether there would be furnished annually some Report as to the state of matters in Perak?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he should endeavour to comply with the request of the right hon. Gentleman. He had omitted to state, in reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, that no Papers on the question of slavery except those which had been presented had been received.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS IV. — EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in moving the Education Vote for England and Wales, said, although the Education Estimates had, for reasons with which he was well acquainted, been postponed till this late period of the Session, he did not suppose it would be the wish of the Committee that he should forego the usual practice of making some statement when they were before the Committee. The total amount asked for the Education Vote amounted to £2,149,208, being in excess by £238,000 over that asked for by his noble Friend, his Predecessor in this Office, last year. But the amount he asked for was insufficient to meet the total disbursements of the year, and £60,000 of a Supplementary Estimate was voted to wards the close of the late financial year. Including that Supplementary Estimate in the comparison of the two years, the amount now asked for was only £178,397 in excess of that required last Session. There had been in the hands of hon. Members for some time past statements relating to the progress of education during the school year ending August, 1877. Upon these figures had been estimated what demands would be made on the Education Department, not for the ensuing school year, but for the financial year beginning in April, 1878, and terminating in March, 1879. The Educational Estimates might be divided into two heads—first, that re-
    1220
    lating to administration and inspection; and, secondly, the sums that might, under Acts of Parliament or the Revised Code, be claimed by training colleges and elementary schools. The latter part of their disbursements for the ensuing year was one of estimate only. They calculated, as accurately as they could, on the actual figures of the past school year, what the wants of the ensuing financial year were likely to be; and those calculations were to a certain extent modified by any alteration in the Code, and by the operation of those sections of the Public Elementary Edution Acts which had not yet fully come into force. The Estimates, therefore, now presented, were, as regarded administration and supervision, thoroughly reliable; as regarded the grant, they were based on Estimates which must, necessarily, be uncertain. Last year, for instance, the Department believed they had made sufficient allowance for the operation of the Act of 1876; but an agreeable surprise was in store for everyone, except the Treasury, for so much greater was the attendance and the results of that attendance, that a Supplementary Estimate of £60,000 was necessary to cover it. The increase estimated for the present year was almost entirely accounted for by the larger grant earned by schools and training colleges; but every great increase in the number of schools and children to be inspected entailed a slight increase in the administrative and supervising staff of the Department, yet that increase did not represent the additional work performed; so that, year by year, the percentage of the cost of administration was diminishing. The increase in the annual grant this year, over the total Estimates of last year, was £168,304, due to an estimated increased attendance in day schools of 140,000 children, and in night schools of 16,000, making a total of 2,388,174 in day schools, and 70,100 in night schools. This increased attendance was not the sole cause of the increase of the grant; for they calculated that under this year's Code, and also to the greater proficiency of the children presented for examination, there would be an advance of 5d. per scholar in attendance. A penny per head upon the estimated attendance was about £10,000. To give some notion of the nicety required in calculating the annual grant for the

    1221
    year, he need only mention two very slight alterations in the Code, but each of which involved, in the aggregate, a large sum. Under one section of the Code, an alteration was made by which a child must obtain a pass in two standard subjects and earn 6s., instead of being able, as under the old system, to pass in one and earn 3s. This slight alteration would, they believed, make a difference in the grant of £17,500 in our favour; whereas, on the other hand, an alteration made in a subsequent portion of the same section of the Code, by which a child would be able to earn 2s. for passing in one subject, instead of being required to earn 4s. by passing in two subjects, would make an addition of £20,000 to the sum which otherwise would have been required from Parliament. If they succeeded in realizing, during the present year, this progress, they ought to be fairly satisfied, as it showed, not only an increase of numbers, but a corresponding improvement in efficiency. Although in comparison between two years the advance might not seem very great, yet if they could in a number of successive years maintain, both in attendance and passes, this ratio of improvement, the progress made in the next decade would be marked and substantial. So much for what they hoped to do during the next few years. He would now turn to the figures which showed what they had done in the past school year. The Report which was in the hands of hon. Members gave such full information that he would not travel over its details; but there were certain salient points in it on which the Committee might require a little information, and which were worthy of notice and comparison. These were four in number—first, the teaching power and the supply of schools and teachers; secondly, the attendance at these schools and the results; third, the organization by which that attendance had been secured; and fourth, the school expenditure of the year and the sources from which it was met. First, as regarded schools and school teachers. In the school year ending August, 1877, the accommodation increased by 227,000 places, and amounted to a total accommodation of 3,626,000 places. The number of schools inspected rose from 14,273 to 15,187, of which 428 were new voluntary schools and 486 board schools. Of
    1222
    the schools inspected, 10,472 were connected with the Church of England, 1,976 were Wesleyan, British, and other schools unconnected with the Church of England, 659 were Roman Catholic, and 2,082 school board. They found that although there had been an increase of population, and the whole of that increase was necessarily amongst children, yet the school supply was increasing in greater proportion. During the last six years the increase of children between three and 15 years of age was about 500,000, or 8 per cent; the increase in school accommodation was 1,640,000, or 81 percent. Unfortunately, this school supply was very unevenly distributed. There were certain parts of the country in which the supply was in excess of the demand, and others in which it did not at all equal the demand. This was one of the difficulties the Department had to contend with. In several districts in which application had been made to give annual grants the school accommodation had been in excess of the demand; but in another instance they had to provide accommodation for a considerable extra number. In point of the relation of supply and demand, there was a very remarkable feat performed in the school district of Lincoln. It was stated in the Appendix to the Report, and it was so remarkable that an inquiry was made by the Education Department to ascertain if there was not a mistake. The number of children in the district was 38,513; the accommodation was exactly the same. They had adjusted the supply to a unit. So that if other districts could adjust their arrangements so nicely as Lincoln, the greatest difficulty the Department had would be overcome. The supply of teachers would very shortly be—if it was not already—adequate to the educational wants of the country. There was no lack of candidates, either male or female, which was scarcely to be wondered at considering the very remarkable improvement that had been effected both in the position and prospects of certificated teachers under the recent Education Acts. No doubt, a certain number of complaints had been made as regarded the number of returns they were called upon to supply; but as the hon. Member for Shefield (Mr. Mundella) had been courteous enough to waive that subject until they

    1223
    were into Committee, he would wait to hear what he had to say, and if he had any suggestion to make, as complaints from a good many quarters had reached the Education Department. One of the causes of the greatly increased demand for teachers arose from the very large number of small schools in the country in receipt of annual grants, 700 having accommodation for less than 60, and 3,100 for 100, or under. Coming to the attendance, he found an increase on the register of over 7 per cent. of those present at inspection over 9 per cent. in the average attendance over 8 per cent; while the number of presentations was 16 per cent in excess over the preceding year. Out of those presented out of every 100 scholars, 85·78 passed in reading, 78·99 in writing, and 69·97 in arithmetic. These percentages showed a great improvement on the preceding year. The same advantage might be shown in the Return of night schools this year. Passing on from the attendance to the organization by which so great an improvement was effected, the population of England in 1871 was 22,713,266, of whom 13,517,585 were under school board jurisdiction, and 9,700,000 were under school attendance committees. Since the Returns from which those figures were taken were published, further Returns had been made to the Education Office, which showed that there was a considerable number of fresh districts which had come under bye-laws and school attendance committees; so that, out of 22,000,000, there were now about 15,000,000 under bye - laws. The number of parishes in England and Wales, which, under the Act of 1870, had placed themselves under the bye-laws of school attendance committees was 353, and of these no less than 80 were in the county of Lincoln, and 50 in the county of Kent; so that, of the whole of England, 36 per cent were in those two counties of Lincoln and Kent. When the Education Act of 1876 was under discussion, no section or clause was more fiercely debated than that permitting the dissolution of school boards. Over this section the House consumed nearly a week, and dire were the forebodings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and somewhat heated their opposition. We had now had one year's experience under those Acts, and so far
    1224
    from the whole system of school boards being overthrown by this section, it was found that only two small school boards had been dissolved, one at Great Addington, and another at Waldron; and, as far as he could make out, these school boards had levied no rates, had no schools; and, in fact, he could find nothing respecting them, except their petition for their own dissolution. The great increase in the attendance at schools naturally necessitated increased expenditure. All schools, whether board or voluntary, had two sources of income in common—annual grants and school pence—the deficiency being met in voluntary schools by subscriptions and endowments, in board schools by the rates. All these sources of income were considerably augmented, the annual grant having risen from £1,316,863 to £1,543,226; school pence from£l,036,408 to £1,138,270; voluntary subscriptions from £751,800 to £786,245, and rates from £369,918 to £447,700. As regarded the grant, the children in board schools had turned the tables this year on children in voluntary schools. Last year the grant of voluntary schools was 13 s. 3¾d., as against 13s. 0¾d. of the board schools; this year it was 14 s. 4d. as against 14 s. 5d. to board schools. The cost of maintenance per child was estimated in voluntary schools to be £1 13 s. 11 d., in board schools £2 1s. 4¼d. This comparison was, however, in one most important sense unfair. The only public money, with the exception of a few fees which voluntary schools received, was from the annual grant; the whole of the rest of their income was drawn from private sources. School boards, however, derived the chief part of their income from rates which was as much public money as taxes, though levied locally. Deducting all private sources of income, and dealing only with the public money, the education of a child in voluntary schools cost the country 14 s. 4d., in board schools £1 15 s. 0½d. But even this comparison did not show the real cost of school boards, for he had excluded all expenditure except that for the maintenance of the school. On page 26 of the Report, it would be found that the annual expenditure—excluding loans— from the rates was 66 per cent of the total expenditure of school boards, the annual grant being 18 per cent.

    1225
    To put it in other words, the expenditure from the rates was 2⅔ as much as the annual grant; therefore, for every pound received from the annual grant, the school board spent £3 13 s. 4d. out of the rates. He would particularly call attention to these figures, for the House would be warranted in drawing a certain conclusion from them. When the Bill of 1870 was under discussion, many Gentlemen on the other side were in favour of a more drastic measure for the extinction of voluntary schools, and the substitution of a uniform rate-supported school system. Suppose that such a measure had been passed, and that voluntary schools had been extinguished, they could now accurately estimate the cost of the experiment. The annual grant to schools this year, excluding all assistance to training colleges, grants under Acts of Parliament, &c, was £1,851,796. Multiplying that by three and two-thirds, they found that a system of education by which our voluntary schools would be extinguished would not be effected unless an additional burden was cast upon the rates of between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000. Supposing, therefore, that this enormous increase to the burdens of the poor ratepayer had been coupled with the compulsory attendance of his children at school, so that he could at once trace an arbitrary interference with his rights as a parent as the cause of his increased taxes, would there not at once have arisen a spontaneous and ubiquitous outcry, and would not a re-action against education have set in, which would have made it almost impossible for the Education Department—nay, even for Parliament—to have rigidly enforced such a measure? The Acts of 1870 and 1876 were framed and conceived in a different spirit, for they carried a wave of popular opinion with them; they utilized to the utmost existing agencies, and the Act of 1876 gave to the properly constituted local authority the power to enforce attendance. The results had been very remarkable. Taking the figures for the present year, and comparing them with the years 1870-1, before the latter came into operation, there was this extraordinary contrast. The amount voted in 1870 for Education was £804,000; it was now £2,149,000; being an increase of £1,345,000, or 167 per cent. The annual grant to day
    1226
    and evening schools was £614,000; it was now £1,857,000, or 201 per cent. The cost of administration was £82,000; it was now £175,000, or 201 per cent. The rate of grant per day scholar was 10s. l¾d.; it was now 15 s. 3d. The schools inspected were 8,281; they were now 15,187. The average attendance was 1,152,000; it was now 2,150,000. The number of certificated teachers was 13,957; it was now 30,400. The number of pupil teachers was 14,710; it was now 31,780. These were great results to have been achieved in so short a space of time; and when they had been accomplished by what had been sometimes sneered at as optional or permissive legislation, his two Predecessors in Office might fairly retort that so great an advance in so short a space of time without direct compulsion was never before made in the popular education of any country, and for this great progress they were entitled to the full credit. The House naturally took great interest in the religious instruction which might be given in schools under school boards. An annual Return was moved for by the hon. Member for Plymouth, which gave details as to the various schools, and the regulations made by school boards in regard to religious instruction. The other day, Sir Charles Reed, at the Crystal Palace, made so remarkable a statement of what the London School Board had done, that, perhaps, the Committee would like to have the observations of Sir Charles on the subject—
    "By the Act of 1870, it was loft free to the School Boards either to give Bible instruction to the children in their schools or to withhold it. The School Board for London, without hesitation, decided that Bible instruction should he given to every child in the schools of London. Therefore, every day, in every school, a portion of the Bible was read, with explanations suited to the capacity of the children. In 690 departments in the London schools 188,000 children daily heard a portion of the Word of God read to them. The attendance upon religious instruction was perfectly voluntary; but he was bound to say that with that perfect option it was almost universal, for not one child in 4,000 was withdrawn from the schools on account of religious instruction, and no single complaint had yet reached the Board from any parent who had been offended by the instruction given to the children. He wished next to say what were the numbers of children who had voluntarily attended the examination in each year. In 1876 —the first year of these examinations—42,000 children attended the examinations. In 1877 the number examined rose to 84,000, and this, year the number was 105,000."

    1227
    These figures showed clearly, that when school boards acted in the same spirit as that which had actuated Sir Charles Reed and the London School Board in teaching children in elementary schools the truths of Christianity, there would be a hearty response both from children and parents. The only other Vote he had to move was that which related to the teaching of Science and Art at South Kensington.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Does the noble Lord intend to take the South Kensington Vote at the same time?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord would not be in Order in making observations on the South Kensington Vote.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, it would be hardly necessary, when that Vote came on, to allude to it at any length; and he thought that he would have been able at once to deal with Science and Art as well as elementary education; but he would accept the ruling of the Chair, and would not allude to Science and Art. He had now brought before the Committee sufficient facts and figures to show that the elementary education of the country—and if he might have alluded to Art and Science, he should have shown that technical education also—was steadily progressing. No doubt, much remained to be done both in filling up gaps in our elementary system, and in broadening and smoothing its upward gradations towards University education. If they could only continue for some years longer the present policy of utilizing to the utmost the various voluntary and endowed agencies willing to co-operate with the State, and thus perpetuate the present educational zeal, they ought to so perfect the whole educational system as to make it equal to the ever-increasing demands of a nation whose well-being depended on the maintenance of its industrial, manufacturing, and commercial supremacy.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,432,808, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Public Education in England and Wales, including Expense of the Education Office in London."
    MR. MUNDELLAagreed with the noble Lord in his remarks on the pro-
    1228
    gress of education during the last eight years. He had remarked that in many cases the school boards throughout the country had not a single school under their control. Had the noble Lord made a comparison between the results of board schools and voluntary schools, it would be found that the former produced results which had surpassed those of many of the best voluntary schools. He had only to congratulate the noble Lord upon his successful Statement, and the Committee upon the progress made year by year both in the increase and quality of education. He would have to trouble the House with a few words upon the Question which he had put on the Notice Paper, but which he had withdrawn to enable the noble Lord to get into Committee. He was very much obliged to him for his courtesy in anticipating what he wished to say, because it referred to matters of great importance to education. He knew at that period of the Session, and at that hour of the night, it would be unwise to detain the Committee by any long or exhaustive statement. The first part of his Notice referred - to the excessive amount of labour imposed on teachers, which was in a great measure interfering with the quality of our education. The question, which was not merely a teachers' grievance, was necessary to be attended to both in the interest of education itself and with regard to the efficiency of the instruction imparted in our schools. The House had done much to increase the quantum of education, and bring it home to every child; but, in order to obtain this result, we had created most complex machinery. We were not merely content with the attendance of children at the schools, but we required a record to be kept of attendances and standard of attainments. We had one standard for half-time, another for full-time, and we had honorary certificates, the registration of which had imposed an enormous amount of labour upon our teachers. By the Act of 1867, the relations of the teachers were solely with the managers and with the Education Department, and the whole work of the school consisted of such registration as was necessary to obtain the grant, the requirements being of the most simple character. But the requirements under the new regulations had increased some-

    1229
    thing like five-fold. In addition to this, we had the requirements of the local authorities of parents and employers of labour, from all which it would be seen that the Act of 1876 had largely increased the responsibilities of the teachers as well as the amount of clerical labour imposed upon them. He would quote some of the 27 new regulations. The first was that—
    "Any parent or other person interested in the education or employment of any child may apply to the local authority or local committee of the district, or to the managers of a certificated school in which the child is for forms of certificate of age, school attendance, and school proficiency."
    The 5th clause said that—
    "Any parent or other persons interested in a child may require the principal teacher of any certificated school to furnish a certificate supplying the number of attendances of the child during each year since the age of five."
    But the 8th regulation was one which imposed by far the largest amount of labour on the teachers, and it was really necessary that the Committee should know the amount of labour it occasioned. It required that—
    "In the month of January in every year the managers of every certificated school shall forward a list showing the name, residence, and age of every child above five years of age, who has attended school for any number of days, however few, in the course of the year, and the number of attendances made by the child in that year, and these registers were to be kept for a period of ten years, and at all times the teachers were bound to furnish copies."
    The House would notice that the school year was made up to the 31st December every year, while more than eleven-twelfths of the schools in the country made up their registers to a different period. The new school year was the 31st August. The Inspectors fixed their own time as to the period of their examinations; but in the month of December the schools were mainly employed with their examinations. The result was that nearly all the schools in the country made up their returns to some period other than the 31st December, and the teacher had to keep a separate set of Returns, and a separate set of averages, the mere making up of which alone, in a school of 300 or 400 children, would employ him from 30 to 50 hours in the month of January. The House could hardly be aware of the amount of
    1230
    statistical and clerical work, with all its necessary correspondence, which they had year by year imposed on the teachers. But for most of this work the Act of 1876 was responsible, and a great deal of it was quite unnecessary. It answered no practical purpose, while it was very onerous to the teacher and quite immaterial to the efficiency of the schools. By the 25th clause, any teacher making a charge, or refusing to make an entry, would no longer be recognized by the Education Department as a teacher of a certificated school, while any certificates held might be suspended or cancelled. So that it would be seen that in addition to being obliged to make a vast number of Returns, the teacher was under penalties of a serious character for any neglect or inaccuracy by which he might be practically deprived of his certificate, and, consequently, of his livelihood. But there was a charge of a different character against the effect of the present system. He held in his hand the list of Returns that had to be made every year by teachers in connection with the London School Board schools, and these were of a more onerous character than were generally supposed. The Board Returns had not only to be kept for the purposes of the London School Board, but for the purpose of meeting the requirements of those districts not under compulsion, and many of them had to be rendered in duplicate and triplicate. These Returns, some of which were of the most difficult character, numbered 63 in the course of the year; and, as he had before stated, there were, in addition to them, the separate set of registers and averages that had to be struck in consequence of the 8th clause of the Act of 1876, in order to enable the teachers to arrive at the required results. But, perhaps, the female teachers were most heavily burdened, as they had, in addition, to register the amount of needlework done in the schools. He would point out the extra labour which this one branch of work entailed on the female teachers of the schools. The principal teacher was required to take an account of every article made, to take stock of the articles made, to distinguish the materials used, to bring forward the old stock, to value the old stock, to value the quantities taken from stock, to state the total quantities taken from stock, &c, and to make a Return of

    1231
    these twice a-year to the Board. This was but one additional item of labour imposed on the female teacher. The effect of all that was, in his opinion, to impair the efficiency of the instruction imparted in our schools, and to interfere with their character and discipline. As a consequence of the teachers being so thoroughly overworked, they had no leisure for the culture of their minds, for the preparation of their lessons, nor for healthy recreation, and the effect of this would be that the teaching would only become mechanical. He apprehended, therefore, that unless they relieved the teachers of some of these onerous and unnecessary labours, the worst results would accrue to education. He had endeavoured to obtain an estimate of the time occupied in this labour, and in order that he might lay it fairly before the House, he had obtained it from a variety of sources. The result of his inquiries was, that after delegating all the work that could be intrusted to pupil teachers, the principal teacher would be employed during one-third or one-fifth of her entire time in making up returns. Now, all this had to be done without fee or reward, for Parliament refused to recognize the teachers as servants, while they were really servants of the school managers and school boards. Without any Act of Parliament to warrant it, the Education Department was constantly issuing regulations which required more and more labour from the teacher, and putting them under the severest penalties if they did not comply with the regulations of the Department, or sent in erroneous returns. He had had occasion to apply to the Education Department to ascertain if they were willing that the teachers should be paid something for this work, and they were of opinion that the teachers should be paid. But while the Department were of that opinion, the Local Government Board said if the school managers paid anything they should disallow it. So the teachers had to do all the work he had described without fee or reward, and do it under such a very high pressure, that they had no time to acquire a knowledge of science of languages or of the higher subjects which had been introduced. Under these circumstances, the discipline of the school must suffer, and already there were complaints of broken health from the teachers, espe-
    1232
    cially the females. He was aware that there were some who argued that payment should be immediately made to the teachers by the Education Department for the work done; but, as one who thought more of the interests of Education, he believed that such payment would of itself not compensate for the ill results that were accruing under the present system. Having increased the quantum of Education, they now wanted to keep up and increase its quality; and the only way to arrive at that result was to relieve the teachers of those onerous and burdensome duties which had been imposed upon them. Parents being ill able to afford to keep their children for many years at school, school life was necessarily short; and it was, therefore, desirable that we should as much as we could economize that time, and give the children as good and perfect an education as possible. The noble Lord had told them that 15,000,000 of the population were under compulsory education. He (Mr. Mundella) believed that this had resulted from the complex machinery which we possessed for bringing children to school. He hoped the noble Lord would not suppose that he was making any complaint with regard to that machinery. He believed that at the end of the year there would be 16,000,000 or 17,000,000 of the population under compulsory education, and that at the end of the next year there would be only 4,000,000 or 5,000,000, who were not under direct compulsion. In his opinion, the way to cut the knot of this question was to put the whole population under direct compulsion, and simplify the labour imposed upon the teachers; which latter was, in his opinion, sufficient to break down the whole system. He was sure the noble Lord did not want to perpetuate a system that would work injuriously on school education, and he believed he would agree that, as far as the teachers were concerned, the present system was highly unsatisfactory. With regard to the alterations which were required, he would leave the matter to the House to fill in the outline he had sketched, and find out a remedy for the evils which he had pointed out. The next subject he had to refer to was that of Inspectorships. At that period of the Session he thought the Committee would agree that the question could not

    1233
    be fully discussed; and he should, therefore, reserve much that he had to say until another opportunity. There was no doubt that the increased demand for teachers, referred to by the noble Lord, had also increased the emoluments of teachers, and that their position had been much improved during the last six or seven years; but there was undoubtedly a want of that stimulus which persons usually had in every other department in life. For the teacher there was no future, so to speak. A man of culture might become Prime Minister of England, a curate might become an Archbishop, and the soldier had the chance of commanding his regiment; but it might be said, once a teacher, always a teacher. He desired to know how long this system, which was utterly at variance with the whole practice of life, was to continue? In England, we always offered to good men the prizes of every profession, and why this should be the rule in the Army, at the Bar, and in the Church, and not in the profession of teaching, he was unable to see. The result of this was that many of the best men were now leaving the profession; and this was much more the case before the increased demand for their services set in, with better pay and other advantages, to the teachers. But the social position of those who remained was precisely the same as it was before, and they all knew how much that had to do with the character of a man. The teacher might say of his profession, in the words of Dante—
    "Lasciate ogni speranza voi che entrate."
    We had in England something like 30,000 teachers. We had in the Education Department 118 Inspectors, with salaries rising from £300 or £400 to £900 a-year. We had a large staff of Examiners, senior and junior, with salaries of £400 to £800 a-year. We had Clerks with salaries rising to £500 a-year. But for not one of these places was the certificated teacher eligible, although he might be the most accomplished man in his profession. Could the noble Lord point to a single instance where a teacher had been promoted to an Inspectorship or an Examinership? He (Mr. Mundella) could learn of no instance of the kind. It was quite true that many teachers, ordained to the Church, had been made Inspectors. In
    1234
    every instance these men had turned out to be the very best of Inspectors. Why could not the teachers rise to Inspectorships? He was not asking the noble Lord to lower the standard. It was at present required that Inspectors should be men who had taken a University degree, and who were under 35 years of age. He was told that among our teachers there were scores of men who had taken their degrees at Oxford, Cambridge, London, and Dublin, but who had not the smallest hope of promotion to these offices. These appointments were made simply by political influence; but in saying this, he did not wish to imply that they were in the slightest degree corrupt, but that young men just fresh from the Universities were made Inspectors and Examiners over the heads of persons who had taken the highest degrees, but who, under the present system, had no chance of mounting the ladder. The result of this was the greatest discouragement to the teachers, who discussed the question at every meeting with the strongest interest and evidently with a great deal of pique. He had been informed that many of the young Inspectors, who had never before entered an elementary school, sometimes fell into the most ridiculous mistakes. He admitted that among our Inspectors we had had some splendid men, who deserved the highest praise and confidence; but during the last three or four years the number of Inspectors had been multiplied. He had heard teachers in his own constituency speak with pain and shame of the absurd questions which were sometimes put to the children by these young Inspectors. One Inspector put this question to children in Standard II.— "Suppose the north were where the south is, where would the east be?" Another set of children, in Standard III., had the following question addressed to them:—"If all the water were drawn off the Straits of Dover, what would be the name of the land that would be discovered?" "What is the colour of salt found in South Wales?" was also a question which was asked; and the interrogation, put to children in Standard II., "What is a steed?" at once elicited the answer, "A horse." That, however, would not do for the young Inspector from Oxford, who declared that a steed was "a horse in motion." A rocking-horse, perhaps, was meant. Anything

    1235
    more absurd he had never heard. Other questions were—"What Strait is there between Europe and America?" "What is the use of fire-flies?" and, "What is the character of the despotism by which India is governed?" Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen might be able to reply to the latter query; though he believed it would be found rather puzzling by a good many hon. Members of the House. No wonder, therefore, that the children could not answer it to the satisfaction of the undergraduate Inspector. What could be more ridiculous than to suppose that young men, who might, no doubt, have passed a very good examination, and have obtained, perhaps, a degree at Oxford or Cambridge, could all at once enter into the minutiœ of child life, and understand all these things without previous training? Some few years ago there were established what were called Inspectors' assistants; and, if hon. Members turned to the Estimates under this head, they would find that there were now 107 of those officials appointed at a minimum salary of £125 a-year. That minimum salary rose £10 annually for nine years, and then at the rate of £15 a-year, until a maximum was attained of £275. So that an Inspector's assistant, who was generally a man of marked ability, of discretion, and of good manners, and who was taken from amongst the best elementary school teachers, had to descend to a salary of £125 per annum before he could occupy that position. He knew one of the very best of Inspectors' assistants who had given up £210 a-year in order that he might hold, though at a considerably reduced figure, what he conceived to be a better social position. Not one of these men had ever yet been promoted to be Inspectors; and he asked hon. Members whether they thought it right that this should be the case? One very remarkable circumstance occurred to him at this moment in connection with this subject, and that was the case of a gentleman who was employed as an Examiner of the Education Department. That gentleman had taken a very different part in politics from that which he (Mr. Mundella) had done; he was a pronounced "Jingo," and went lecturing about the country; he had stormed platforms in Hyde Park; he had been in Servia; he had written capital newspaper articles; and now he
    1236
    was—an Examiner in the Education Department. How had he attained that position? Was it because he was an accomplished schoolmaster? Nothing of the kind. In 1874 he was an undergraduate at one of the Universities; he made good political speeches; he had considerable influence; and he was pitchforked into the position which he now held. The House could not imagine that that sort of thing could go on without teachers making their comments upon it, and without causing amongst them great bitterness and heartburning. He urged upon the Government the desirability and the justice of giving the teachers a better chance than they had at present of becoming Inspectors. He did not ask that the Department should lower the standard of education required of an Inspector. Let the standard be raised if necessary; but let the teacher who possessed culture, fitness, and merit, enjoy the advantage of his professional training as much as the man who was appointed to an Inspectorship merely because he had political information. He was much obliged to the Committee for giving him the opportunity of making these observations. He had touched upon a subject of much importance; and he might enlarge upon it at another time. Before resuming his seat, he might be allowed just one word more. It might be said that the majority of teachers were not cultivated men; but why were they not cultivated men? Why should the teacher not be a gentleman? In the best clubs of Germany and Switzerland, teachers associated, on terms of perfect equality, with officers in the army and with gentlemen in every rank of life; and if their position in this country were improved, as it might be, how much greater might be their influence upon the children with whom they came in contact—how much greater might be their effect, not only in regard to instruction, but in producing higher social aspirations, and in leading to greater refinement of manners.
    MR. BOORDsaid, that after the very full statement of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), he would only trouble the Committee with a few words in support of the complaint he had made on behalf of the elementary teachers in reference to the burdensome work thrown on them by the very voluminous returns they were obliged to send in. It was

    1237
    doubtful what precise proportion of the clerical work complained of resulted from the extended operation of the original Act of 1870, and what was due to the amending Act of 1876; but there could be no question that recent Codes had led to a considerable increase in such work, notably in the case of returns relating to needlework, on which the hon. Member had laid great stress. The returns must either be prepared in school time—in which case the attention devoted to the children must necessarily be diminished—or afterwards, when the leisure the teacher had for rest and recreation would be interfered with. Seeing that extra payment for such work might prove an incentive to neglect more important duties, he suggested that the better course would be that they should be relieved of all labour of the kind that was not absolutely indispensable to the Department, and he hoped that that proposal would be favourably considered by the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council. He had had several communications from elementary teachers in his own constituency and elsewhere, and amongst their grievances was one which had not been referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield. It was that, in case of complaint being made against them by their managers to the Department, they had no opportunity of submitting their defence, and that instances had occurred where the Department had taken action, by suspending their certificates, on the ex parte complaint of managers, without appeal, and without the teacher having any opportunity of stating his case in reply. The position was somewhat anomalous, since the Department, although the teachers were not its servants, exercised considerable control over them. The remedy asked for was what was described as a Court of Appeal, in which cases could be heard on their merits. He was doubtful as to the possibility of doing anything in that direction; but if the noble Lord would give his personal attention to such cases, with a view to seeing that no injustice was done, he would probably do all that was at present desirable. He begged, in conclusion, to congratulate his noble Friend on the extremely lucid statement he had made, which must be highly satisfactory to the friends of education throughout the country.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must also congratulate the noble Lord on the statement which he had laid before the Committee. That statement was, upon the whole, satisfactory; but, while he said so, he desired for the first time during all the years in which he had either brought forward the Estimates himself or had heard them brought forward, to give a little warning about the matter of expense. It seemed to him that the grant had now got as high as would be really useful for educational purposes. If they went further they would be doing out of Imperial taxes what ought to be accomplished and overtaken out of local resources; and that might eventually lead to centralization, which, though tempting, perhaps, at first sight, would be disadvantageous to the interests of education. With reference to the subject which had been brought under the notice of the Committee by the hon. Member for Sheffield, there could be no doubt that the question of school returns was one which deserved careful consideration. He had himself gone practically into it, and had been not only astonished but pained to find the great amount of time and labour which had to be given to the preparation of the returns. He did not know how far he himself might be answerable for that result in connection with the Act of 1870; but he thought it had been caused more immediately by the Statute of 1876. Indeed, he did not know but that all hon. Members were more or less responsible for the result to which he referred. They were all deeply interested in the subject of education, and this interest might have led to the preparation of returns which, perhaps, involved more labour than they were really worth. The head master of a large school had to devote a considerable number of hours every week to the preparation of these returns; and that to some extent necessitated his turning himself into a clerk, and calling upon assistants to do work which he ought to do personally. So far as this was the case, nothing could be a more foolish and wasteful expenditure of public money. If a master did such work outside of school hours, the loss to the public was still almost as great. The work of a master did not, or should not, end with school hours—he had to prepare for other lessons; he had to instruct the

    1239
    pupil teachers, which was a very considerable labour; and, in a good many instances, the management of Science and Art, and of evening classes, had also to be attended to. No persons worked harder than the masters or mistresses of large schools; and the fact was that they had. not time to expend upon the compilation of these returns, except at the cost of their own health or of efficiency in the conduct of their establishments. He should not recommend that they should be specially paid for that particular work. The result of making a special payment would simply be to fasten the work upon them. But he would suggest to the noble Lord, whether the time had not come for thoroughly looking into the subject of the returns referred to, and whether a Commission might not be appointed— and it need not be a Royal, nor yet exactly a Departmental Commission—in order to ascertain whether some of the returns could not be simplified, or got rid of altogether? The main object of the Act of 1876 was to secure the attendance of children at school, and this purpose was one which was not to be frustrated. The Committee, however, would remember that compulsory attendance depended upon three things—first, the age of the child; second, the standard to which he had passed; or, third, the number of attendances he had made. That was to say, that no child should he allowed to work before he was 10 years of age, and that if he could not pass a certain standard, he would be kept at school until he was 14; while, if he came up to the mark, he would be allowed to work at an earlier age. But the Government thought it right to provide an alternative to the standard of proficiency in the shape of a certain number of attendances; and he did not believe the noble Lord would dispute the assertion that a large proportion of the returns consisted of statements as to the number of attendances made by each child during the previous five years. Although this was done, he believed that the number of cases in which the returns were found to be of any practical service was infinitesimally small; and he hoped the noble Lord would consider whether it was worth while continuing the stipulation as to attendances. Of course, this was an important question, and was not to be
    1240
    judged of merely from the point of view of the schoolmaster; but he should be very much surprised if, after careful examination, the noble Lord and the officers of the Department did not come to the conclusion that there was more trouble than use in retaining this stipulation with regard to attendance. With regard to the position of the teachers, and the possibility of their becoming Inspectors, he knew that there was a strong feeling on the subject, and he was not surprised that it should exist. He was strongly of opinion that there ought to be nothing to prevent a schoolmaster from being appointed an Inspector. If the schoolmaster fulfilled every other requirement, there certainly ought to be nothing to prevent it. He supposed his noble Friend, as Vice President, was like himself when he held that Office, and had none of the patronage. The patronage belonged entirely to the President. In his time, the rule that the Marquess of Ripon laid down was that no schoolmaster should be appointed an Inspector who had not taken a high University degree. He did not know what the present rule was, but if a schoolmaster had taken high honours he ought to have a chance. But he thought it would be misleading schoolmasters if they were led to imagine that many of them could fulfil conditions such as these; for, indeed, very few could ever become Inspectors, as there were only about 200 Inspectors. [Mr. MUNDELLA: There are 118 Inspectors.] Yes, and there were 15,000 schoolmasters or thereabouts, and so very few could look forward to being Inspectors. The real prize which, he believed, they would look forward to was the mastership of a secondary school, and that would be what they would aim at. The position of schoolmasters and mistresses required very careful looking at, for they were becoming a most important body in the State. Their position was better now they had better pay and a better social position; but it was not yet so good as it ought to be, and they were sensitive—naturally sensitive—on that account. He thought that they should acknowledge their position more and more every year; but the relations between them and the Inspectors did require great consideration, and, so to speak, the inspection of the Department. The Inspectors had been, and, no doubt,

    1241
    would be, increased, and it was difficult to make so good a choice as before; and he thought the schoolmaster—say with a large school containing 500 or 600 children, and who was a superior person—had a right to complain of the manner in which they were inspected by some young Inspector. That difficulty might, he thought, be met by the establishment of a sort of hierarchy in the Inspectorate; two ranks of Inspectors might be made, and they might have a few of the oldest and best Inspectors put in a position over the others, so as not to allow a young man to start as an Inspector until he had passed some apprenticeship under some of the most experienced Inspectors. He only threw out these ideas as suggestions, for no doubt these questions occupied the mind of the noble Lord quite as much as anyone outside the Department. Just one word more, and that would be as to the appeal of schoolmasters, and on this head he thought there must be some misapprehension. He did not suppose that the Department would suspend the certificate of a master without allowing him to be heard, or without looking into the matter, or someone high in authority reading carefully the Report of the Inspector. When they came to the managers, it was more difficult to deal with. When the managers dismissed a schoolmaster it was not easy to say how far the Department ought to interfere in the matter, for it came to this—that the masters must be employed either by the managers or the Department. If the managers employed the masters, they must have power to dismiss them; but then some said, why should not the Department employ the schoolmasters? That would lead at once to centralization, and the managers would naturally cease to take any interest in the schools, which would be practically taken from their control.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, that agreeing, as he did, for the most part with the views of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) in reference to the status and pay given to requirements now demanded from teachers, there was an aspect of this business that he felt he should be derelict in his duty if he did not mention, and against which he must most emphatically protest. He alluded to the fact, unquestioned and unquestionable, that, instead of contenting
    1242
    themselves with putting into force the principles, powers, and provisions of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, a great many of the school boards, especially those in the North of England, were systematically departing from — nay, he would say actually infringing, the provisions of the Act and the objects they were supposed to have in view originally. In a large number of those boroughs there had been instituted by the several school boards, schools, under the designation of higher board schools, in which young ladies were taught the piano, and young gentlemen were instructed in Latin, Greek, Mathematics, Euclid, Gymnastics, and almost the entire curriculum of the most finished education. Now, what he (Mr. Wheelhouse) wanted to know was, how was it to be expected that the poor and indigent ratepayers of our large towns ought, in any reason, to be called upon to pay for the ornamental education of such children? Was that either the purpose or supposed intention of the Elementary Education Act? He ventured to think not; and he (Mr. Wheelhouse) also said, most decidedly, that had the promoters of this Bill, while it was passing through this House, dared to point out any such goal, they would never have been able to pass it at all. The Bill, while it remained such, was stated—even ostentatiously stated — to be a measure in aid of those who could not afford to give their children the fair opportunity of earning their own bread without such eleemosynary assistance; but the attempt to do more than that was, as he (Mr. Wheelhouse) contended, beyond the purview of the measure, wholly and entirely. Not only were the school-houses used, but prospectuses were printed and published, for the especial use of the better class of children at the cost of the ratepayers. These prospectuses spoke for themselves; and what he wished to know was, where, if this sort of thing was to go on unchecked, it was intended to place the limit, or where it was proposed that they should stop? He hoped he was—indeed, he thought he was—as strong an Educationist as any man in that House; but he thought it worse than absurd to make the poorer classes of ratepayers in the large towns provide not merely palaces as schools, but to seek to give an education—at the cost of those poor

    1243
    ratepayers—which, practically, fitted the children of the better classes for entrance into any one of our Universities. If they could do this legitimately under the provisions of the so-called Elementary Education Act of 1870, he could not see that there was anything whatever to prevent the application of that Act to the Universities of the three Kingdoms. Either that Act was—as he believed—intended for the education of the poorest classes, who could not afford to pay for their education, or it was not; but if not, and if the present state of things was not altered, all that he could say was that the sooner the attempt was made, legislatively, and in the face of day, to establish middle-grade schools, with something like free education for everybody, so much the better. He knew that was a doctrine which would meet with the approval of many hon. Members on the other side, but with those ideas he could not concur. Still, if it were to be, let the present—or any other—Administration say so boldly, and endeavour to lay down, and act upon, such policy. Let the ratepayers fully understand the position, and let them find what they were expected to pay, and then they would be able to cope with the difficulty. He had foreseen it long ago, had mentioned it long since, and the question of possibly prospective, if not present, expense, was apparently coming home to the mind even of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). He (Mr. Wheelhouse) was beginning to doubt whether they had not gone far enough. He had no hesitation in saying they had already gone further than they were warranted in doing under this Act, and he must confess that he feared the action of the Education Department had not only facilitated, but fostered, departure from the original purpose of the Act of 1870. They had been told that the expenditure ought to be curbed. In that he fully agreed; but he told the House plainly that it was no good expecting any such curb to take effect, while such a derogation from the original principle and purpose of the measure was either permitted or sanctioned. So far as the ratepayer's pocket was involved, he could not see why he, or any poorer ratepayer than himself, should be called upon to put his hand into his purse to educate the child of any other man who was far better
    1244
    able to give such education as might be deemed necessary than he was. If it were a question of educating any child, who, without assistance, could not earn his own bread, then he would give the necessary aid most willingly; but if it were a question of rates, then even this aid must be given as economically as possible. Let those who wanted higher class schools by all means provide them; but do not let it be attempted by means, or at the expense, of the rate paying community—a class already quite sufficiently burdened as it was. He did not desire to put a stop to education, but he was extremely anxious that the ratepayers' money should not be illegitimately or unreasonably spent. But he had another, and, as he felt it, a most serious charge, to bring against not only this, but the Education Department of the late Government. It was said that the object of the Act of 1870 was to insure "that every child in the Kingdom should be educated." Had the Government either done this, or sought to do it? Not a bit of it. Simultaneously with the Act of 1870, he himself had brought in a Bill providing for the education of two classes of children who required the necessary instruction more than any other—he referred to the blind and deaf-mute children of this country; but for eight long years he had begged Government either to do something itself for those classes, or give him (Mr. Wheelhouse) some assistance in doing it for them. Still, with the exception of allowing him to hope to pass a Bill, very much eviscerated from his original proposition, nothing had been done. He had no hesitation in saying that had these children not been poor and few, and weak and helpless, something would have been done for them. It must be borne in mind that the parents of such children were required to pay their quota to the new education rate, and yet in the case of each one of them every statutory assistance was denied. While such a state of things existed, it was worse than idle to speak of "educating every child in the Kingdom," since any such allegation was little more than a cold, unkindly, and uncalculating farce. He trusted that the attention of the Government would even yet be directed to both the matters of which he complained, without any further delay.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose for the purpose of supporting the recommendations of his right hon. Friend near him. His right hon. Friend began by pointing out that, for the first time, he experienced a feeling of apprehension with regard to the rate per head to which this subvention of the State in the matter of education had now reached. The hon. and learned Member who had just sat down referred, as one of the main sources of this difficulty, to the practice of introducing the branches of higher education into board schools, and the hon. Member urged that there should be something like an absolute prohibition put on that practice. He was not prepared to go to that extent, for it appeared to him that they were not reduced to a dilemma quite so embarrassing as that which the hon. and learned Member seemed to take for granted. They must consider the sources of income of the board schools before they could deal with that question. First, there was the Public Exchequer, then the rates which were locally levied and self-regulating, and, finally, the fees paid by the children. His right hon. Friend had pointed out that the duty of Parliament was to take care that the contribution of the State was duly watched and properly limited, was not allowed to go beyond certain bounds for the purpose of providing this extraneous and higher branches of education, or for any other purpose; and it appeared to him that, in making that suggestion, his right hon. Friend had said substantially all that was necessary in the case. Parliament could only deal with that matter, and they ought to see that the funds of the Exchequer were not made applicable for the purpose of conveying the higher branches of education. But with regard to the other two sources from which the cost of the schools was defrayed, it seemed to him that other considerations came into play. He should suppose that when it was thought fit to allow of the introduction of the higher branches of education, wise and intelligent boards would take all the care in their power to provide that, as far as possible, the charges of those higher branches of education should be met by extra fees. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Wheelhouse) said that it was a hard case on the poor ratepayers to have to pay for the schooling of the children of those who were well able to pay for such educa-
    1246
    tion themselves; but the hon. and learned Member should recollect that the school boards were elected, and that there was a system of free representation, and surely, if any great hardship came to exist, it manifestly would make itself felt in the elections, and the board would be under the control of the ratepayers. All Parliament could do was to take care that the State contribution was not excessive; and they might consider that, on the whole, the self-acting principle would keep the other sources of income in order. He was also desirous of speaking on the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) as to the extra labour imposed on schoolmasters by having to make returns. He would extend the dicta of his hon. Friend, that the schoolmaster of a large school, if he did his duty, was a very hard-worked man, by adding that the teachers of all schools, if they did their duties properly, must not unreasonably be called very hard-working men. Teaching of itself was among the most laborious of employments, and they should not tamper with the instruments which they had put into action for the purpose of discharging such duties. It seemed to be agreed that this matter of statistics had grown to a head which called for the careful attention of the Department. On many grounds, it was not desirable to consider a separate remuneration, because that would make a distinction of work—the conveyance of instruction and the making of returns. It was not desirable to have that competition which would inevitably arise. It was quite obvious, however, that they could not go on multiplying without limit these returns, and, at the same time, escape from being driven into giving additional emolument. He was startled and pained to hear from the computation of the hon. Member for Sheffield, that from one-third to one-fifth of the whole time of the schoolmasters was taken up by making returns. That was a very unsound state of things, and it certainly did need the careful attention of the Department, and for these reasons—-First of all, with the view of doing justice to the claims of the schoolmaster, as far as they might require it; and, secondly, with a view especially of preventing such an amount of interference with the discharge of his proper duties, as must necessarily be very injurious, in the vast majority of

    1247
    cases, to the manner in which they were discharged. There was one other point on which he wished to say a few words, and that was with respect to the conduct of the Department in respect of complaints made against schoolmasters—in fact, whether the Department was to be a Court of Appeal. If schoolmasters conceived that they ought to be made servants of the Department, he thought the observations of his right hon. Friend on that subject were conclusive. They could not alter the present state of things, with regard to the appointment and dismissal of schoolmasters, without fundamentally altering their entire system. He thought that after the fullest admission of that principle, it was still in the power of the noble Lord, if he would kindly use it, to give considerable relief and satisfaction to schoolmasters on that subject. He was convinced that it would be a matter of comfort and satisfaction to the schoolmasters, if they were assured that whenever the Department was called upon to act in cases of imputation or charges made against them the Department would not rest satisfied either with the ex parte statement of the managers, or even with the official statement of their own Inspectors; but that the noble Lord would take such measures and cause such care to be had of the investigation of the case, that he could feel himself that he could become responsible for its determination. With regard to the principle of promotion among schoolmasters, it was impossible, in considering a question between schoolmasters and the Inspectorate, not to be reminded of the question analogous to it in so many senses, of the relation between commissioned and non-commissioned officers in the Army; but, after all, the first promotion of a non-commissioned officer was not such a great step; it was important because it introduced him to a series of steps. He did not attempt to dogmatize as to the conditions upon which that principle could be best applied to the Inspectorate; but he was sure that among all employments there was none that more absolutely required for its efficient discharge to be sustained by a reasonable hope of promotion, and, perhaps, in some degree, accompanied by change and relief, than that arduous duty of the schoolmaster.
    MR. E. HUBBARDsaid, they were granting a Vote of £2,145,000, and he
    1248
    wished to inquire whether they were getting good value for their money. Were they training up for a future generation boys who would become kind and sober husbands, and girls who would become good housewives? He thought that as long as children remained uninstructed in the art of swimming, which he had found to be taught both to boys and girls in the London pauper schools, one important part, at all events, of their education was neglected. He was aware that the construction of baths in large towns would be attended with expense; but, on the other hand, he was of opinion that in a great many country schools a bath might be made with very little outlay. Again, with regard to the crime of drunkenness, he suggested that the noble Lord should embody some of the results of the inquiries of the Commission of 1864, which sat upon that subject, in the form of an inventory, so that every child might be taught to avoid the consequences of drunkenness. He looked forward to the time when it should be as impossible for a man to lose his life by drowning as it would be for a man or woman to be brought before the bench for drunkenness.
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHsaid, it seemed to him that so long as the Education Department had to call on teachers for the returns, so long, probably, must the penalty of the withdrawal of their certificate be attached. That seemed to him to be, amongst other objections, fatal to the plan of obtaining those returns directly from teachers; because that penalty was out of all proportion to the offence of omitting to make those returns. He thought that there really ought not to be any difficulty in requiring the local authorities to furnish returns which, in his opinion, might be greatly reduced and cut down, or in getting the managers of the voluntary and board schools to make them up. But, if the teachers were called upon to furnish them, they should, of course, be remunerated. He passed on to say a word for trained teachers in industrial schools. Some years ago it was impossible for teachers serving some time in industrial schools to have that time counted to them for the purpose of their certificates. That was now altered—the time spent in teaching in an industrial school was counted; but the

    1249
    certificate was not given to a teacher engaged in an industrial school; and, in order to obtain his certificate, a teacher was obliged to leave the industrial school, and go into an elementary school. This was a great disadvantage to the industrial schools, and was also most unfair to the teachers. He suggested that the Education Department should get over any jealousy or distrust that they might have of the Home Office Inspectors, and accept their Reports on the merits of teachers, so as to enable the teacher to get his certificate without being obliged to leave the industrial school. He would not say more upon that point, except to express his hope that the noble Lord would give an assurance that the subject should receive some attention. He ventured to ask the noble Lord whether it would not be possible to produce the Reports of the Inspectors at an earlier date than that at which they were now forthcoming? The Reports presented to the Education Department for the past year—1877—were dated in January of the present year, but had not yet seen the light, and might, probably not be in the hands of Members till their return from the Recess, when the Reports would be quite stale. He did not see why the Reports of the Inspectors should not be printed at the same time as the annual Report of the Education Department. He had looked into the Report of last year with very great interest, and had compared it with that of 1870; and he must congratulate his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford and the noble Lord on the very great progress made since the passing of the Act of that year. He found the school accommodation had increased from 1,878,584 to 3,146,424, or about double, for the year 1877. There was still a want of school room, however, for 181,000 children; the corresponding want in 1870 having been for 1,577,000. There was one point in which we were receding, rather than advancing, and that was, that in proportion as we built more schools and provided more places in schools, the average of empty seats constantly increased, because the attendance of children did not keep pace with the increase of accommodation. He found that whereas the number of empty seats in 1870 was 726,195, the number of empty seats in 1877 was over 1,500,000.
    1250
    Now, that fact pointed to the importance of measures for securing that the attendance at the schools should be more regular. It was most important to consider how this was to be effected. He was very much struck with the advance made during the last two years in the adoption of bye-laws for compelling attendance; for while, in 1876, 10,500,000, out of a population of 24,000,000, were under compulsory education, we were now told that bye-laws had been practically adopted for more than 15,000,000, out of a population of 24,500,000; the result being that whereas, in 1876, 13,500,000 were not under compulsion, at the present time only 9,500,000 were not under compulsion. He could not help thinking that the time was coming when no districts would be allowed to remain outside the operation of compulsory education. He thought it worthy of the consideration of his noble Friend, whether the time was not approaching when this question should be settled by the establishment of one general law of compulsory education, which should supersede bye-laws. He did not think we should attempt to move too much in advance of public opinion, although it was the duty of the Department to lead it. He would have liked to say a little more upon the subject of the great progress that had been made under the two Acts of 1870 and 1876; but, at that hour, would do no more than commend the suggestions which he offered to the consideration of the noble Lord.
    MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, of all the modern instruments of torture, by which the labours of school teachers were aggravated, The Child's School Book, which he held in his hand, was the worst. But that book was connected with the whole school life of every child. The book was in itself of the most flimsy material, and never could last for the period of nine years, for which returns might be asked. But what he (Mr. Dalrymple) referred to in the book was the excessive amount of returns which it necessitated, and if there was to be an inquiry into the painfully minute returns which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), he asked the noble Lord to allow that book to be made one of the first subjects to be inquired into. It gave an immense amount of unneces-

    1251
    sary labour to the teachers, without any corresponding value being derived from it.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, the subject of the returns referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) was an important one in two respects, inasmuch as it imposed upon the schoolmasters a great sacrifice of time. The matter had been properly dwelt upon; but perhaps some hon. Members might not be so thoroughly convinced of the difficulty as were those who had investigated the question. He had found that the entries required to be made by schoolmasters might be called forth as legal evidence at one time or another; and it was, therefore, absolutely necessary that the greatest exactitude should be observed with regard to them, while it would be wrong to delegate them to anyone else. It was very important that the Department should see whether these returns could be reduced in extent, and yet be accurate. With regard to the other question raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, as to whether educated schoolmasters wore competent to perform the duties of Inspectors of schools, there could not be the slightest doubt that it ought to meet with the attention of the Department. Since the recent increase in the supply of teachers, some of them had, by the management of very large schools, proved their competence and qualifications for these appointments; their education had been thoroughly evidenced by the degrees taken by them in our Universities, and he could not see that there ought to be any hesitation on the part of the Education Department to investigate the question whether these men might not be wisely introduced into our Inspectorships. The young undergraduates appointed as Inspectors were necessarily inexperienced, and in other respects not properly educated for the purposes required. There was another question to which he would call the attention of the noble Lord, with the hope of modifying the conditions upon which pensions were granted to teachers. Some years ago, the Department became convinced that it was time to take into consideration the necessity of granting pensions to teachers who had fulfilled certain conditions. The Department most satisfactorily granted the request of the teachers and their friends, and estab-
    1252
    lished 270 annuities for a corresponding number of teachers. With that grant were incorporated some very suitable conditions, for it was quite necessary that these pensions should not be thrown right and left to anybody who asked for them. When the grants were first made, they were much more easily obtained than they were now; because, under the present Code, they were not given to a teacher who had not been, at the time of applying for the grant, continuously a teacher since the year 1862. He believed the Department had not rejected many applications; but it was true that some rejections had been made, and, to his knowledge, there had resulted some cases of very great hardship. He thought the Department should take into consideration that the grant was not exhausted by a considerable amount, and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to see his way to some relaxation of the hard-and-fast line which had been applied. He trusted the Committee would be ready to recommend the noble Lord to look upon the cases he had referred to with favour, and with readiness to include as many of them as he could in the future administration of the funds.
    LOUD GEORGE HAMILTONthanked the Committee for the favour with which it had received his statements on education. He would now proceed to refer to some of the observations which had been made by hon. Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. E. Hub-bard) was anxious that children should be taught to swim. It was hardly possible, however, in small towns, and even in the country, to provide swimming baths, where all children could be taught to swim, without enormous expenditure. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) had called attention to the advanced education that some school boards were giving in certain parts of England, and had expressed a very strong opinion that the ratepayers should not be forced to contribute towards the education of persons who were far better able to pay for education for their children than they themselves were. He quite agreed with a great deal that the hon. and learned Member had said; but the principle on which the Education Department had acted in such cases was this—that where a school board had established advanced

    1253
    schools, care was taken that those schools should not become a greater burden to the ratepayers than ordinary elementary schools. The Department insisted that such fees should be levied upon the children attending those schools as would pay for the higher class education which they received; and so long as the Education Department insisted upon this principle being enforced, he did not think that the ratepayers had any cause of complaint. For his hon. and learned Friend must remember, at the present moment, any person had. a right to send his son to the elementary school; and if he were prepared to pay sufficient to enable his children to get a higher and a better education, he could do so. Thus, a higher education could be obtained by anyone who chose to pay for it, without any additional expenses being thrown on the ratepayer, who, therefore, had no reason to grumble. A great part of the discussion which had taken place had been with respect to position and fees of teachers, and three questions had been prominently brought forward. The first point had reference to the claims of teachers to become Inspectors; the second related to the power of suspending the certificates of teachers; and the third referred to the number of returns which teachers had to make. As regarded the first point, he might inform the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that there was no bar whatever to teachers becoming Inspectors; they were eligible, and the rules which his noble Friend the Lord President had put in force were precisely the same as those previously in use. In those rules, it was insisted in every case that Inspectors should have taken very high University honours. The Lord President was quite ready to admit that, in any exceptional cases, teachers might become Inspectors. But, as a matter of fact, the duties of Inspectors were very different from those of teachers. They had to decide upon the proper amount of school accommodation in a district, and they had to discharge a variety of other duties, involving considerable experience. Because a man was a good teacher, it was not certain that he would make a good Inspector; and the number of teachers was so great, and of Inspectors so email, that very few only from among the teachers could ever be selected as Inspectors. It must be remembered
    1254
    that the teachers were an organized body, and he could not conceive anything more dangerous than that the House of Commons should pass a Resolution giving teachers a priority of claim to become Inspectors. The result would be very undesirable, for then the whole body of teachers and Inspectors would become a close corporation. With regard to the suspension of certificates, he might inform his hon. Friend that in every case which had come before him, the rule he had applied was, that when an Inspector made a charge against the teacher, such as involved suspension of his certificate, the teacher was called upon to explain the matter; and not until such an explanation had been received, in any single case, had any decision been arrived at. With regard to the returns which were required to be made to the Education Department, there seemed to be a strong feeling on the part of the Committee that it would be unwise of the State to undertake to pay persons to furnish those returns. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) admitted that the way in which the grant was spent must be narrowly watched, and that at present the country was paying almost as much under the head of managers of schools as was proper. It must be remembered that the State entered into a contract with the managers of schools at so much per child, for the children conforming to certain conditions. Of late, the managers had considerably increased the amount which they obtained under their contract. The teachers were the servants of the managers, and their complaint was, that in a Circular recently issued by the Education Department, insisting upon certain returns being filled up by teachers, and not by managers, they had had extra work placed upon them without remuneration. He was quite prepared to consider whether the onus of filling up the returns could not be put upon the managers instead of upon the teachers, so long as terms of the Act were complied with. He should also be disposed to consider whether some alteration should not be made with regard to the local authority. He had a list of the returns which the Education Department required; they were divided into three heads. Those under the head of Inspectors were furnished by the Inspector. Possibly, the

    1255
    manager or the local authority might hit upon some plan by which the other heads of returns could be furnished without burdening the teachers. Some plan might be devised by which the managers could do what was necessary. Attention had been drawn to the regulations drawn up by the Education Department under Section 25, by which teachers were put under regulations with respect to making charges for certificates. He would explain the reason of that requirement. Complaint was made to the Department that in agricultural districts children, or the guardians of children, were unable to obtain certificates from the teachers; and in one case that came under the notice of the Education Department, the teacher had made a most exorbitant charge for giving this certificate. This regulation was, therefore, put in force for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of the practice. He would assure the Committee that during the Recess the question of the returns would be very carefully considered by him. He did not think that the proposal to appoint a Royal Commission, independently of the Education Department, would answer; because those returns were for the purpose of affording the Education Department certain information. Therefore, it would be impossible to arrange the Returns except with the knowledge of the exact purposes for which the information was required by the Education Department. But he would undertake, during the Recess, to look very carefully into the question of the returns, with a view to the amelioration of the hardships of which complaint was made.
    MR. MUNDELLAwished to assure the noble Lord that all he desired the House to express an opinion upon was that it was desirable that the office of Inspector should be thrown open to the teachers. He did not, for one moment, wish the teachers to have any preference over anybody else, but simply that a teacher should have equal right of competition if he could show the same University honours and experience.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEhad certainly not said, nor did he wish to be understood as describing the Education Act of 1870 as a farce; he only intended to imply that the mode in which some children were now educated under it
    1256
    was, so far as the ratepayers were concerned, a farce.
    SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTHobserved, that the noble Lord had omitted to answer the point he had raised with reference to the industrial schools.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONapologized for having forgotten the matter; but before he could give an answer to the question, he should be under the necessity of consulting the Secretary of State for War, and the President of the Local Government Board. There were a certain number of schools in connection with the Local Government Board, and with the Admiralty and War Office, in which there were teachers who might be entitled to the certificates granted by the Education Department. But they must do nothing which would, in the slightest degree, diminish the value of the certificates now given by the Education Department; and, therefore, he must consult with his Colleagues before he could give any definite answer as to whether or not the Department was prepared to recognize teachers in their schools in the same way as teachers under the Education Department. With respect to the remarks of his hon. Friend as to compulsion, he would remind him that, at the present moment, only small parts of England were not under bye-laws. In the opinion of many persons, in the agricultural districts education was progressing too fast. He might say that he did not share that opinion; but if the public were found to send their children to school voluntarily, he thought it would be dangerous to apply compulsion. At any rate, it was an extreme measure, and one upon which he should not like to express any opinion. As regarded pensions, as his hon. Friend was aware, 14 years ago the system in force was suspended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe). The Education Department had since been constrained to lay down certain regulations with regard to pensions. He did not know whether the hon. Member proposed that pensions should be given to all persons who would have been entitled to them under the regulations which were suspended. Under the present system, pensions were only given in certain cases; so that, in any distressing or hard cases, the Department was always

    1257
    prepared to strain a point. At the same time, he might observe that the Department always considered the claims to pensions on the basis of the rules which they had laid down.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £205,014, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith."
    MR. ERRINGTONsaid, that there was a question with reference to this Vote that could not be passed over. He did not raise any objection to the purpose for which the money was voted; on the contrary, he would be delighted if the sum voted should be increased, provided it was properly spent. The accounts given by the Science and Art Department were very complicated. Within the last year there had been a very grave irregularity in several particulars which he did not think ought to be passed over. The Estimates last year for the South Kensington Museum amounted to £315,673. But beyond that, there was spent £15,000 for purposes not mentioned in the Vote, and which had not received the authority of Parliament. About £18,000 was borrowed on the Vote, and that enabled the £15,000 to be spent, and left a surplus of £3,000. When it was considered that these Votes were intended to give Parliament some sort of control over the way in which money was spent, it was not too much to say that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the mode in which these Votes were prepared and the money spent. It appeared that this money had been spent on the Loan Exhibition. The original intention was that this Loan Exhibition should cost £500; and that sum was so small that it was probably thought not worth while to increase the Votes on account of it. He made no imputation that this money had been dishonestly made away with; but he did say that it had been spent in defiance of ordinary rules. The matter was investigated by the Committee of Public Accounts, and the impression produced upon the Members of the Committee by the answers given to them by the head of the Science and Art Department was so unsatisfactory,
    1258
    that he felt bound to call attention to it as a mode of protesting against the illegal way in which this money had been spent. There was another instance he would mention. The sum charged in the Accounts for the preparation of rat-guards was £366 5s. 3d.; but the Estimate was £1,700, which made a very considerable difference. When the Chief of the Department was examined before the Committee, he stated that this was due to the expenditure on the rat-guards required by the Loan Exhibition which had outgrown its anticipated limits. But when the Accounts for the Exhibition were examined, it was found that only £841 in respect of rat-guards was due to the Loan Exhibition. Thus there was actually the sum of £1,100 to be accounted for; and when the official was asked about this, he admitted that he had not looked into the matter, and could not explain it. The Committee considered that this matter showed so exceeding a laxity on the part of the Department, that they felt bound to take notice of it. Under these circumstances, the Committee expressed their strong opinion which was concurred in by the Treasury as to the unsatisfactory nature of these Accounts. Supposing they thought it would never occur again, there would be no necessity to go back again to what had passed. But that was hardly the case, and the Accounts were still exceedingly complicated. He thought there should be some security that these things should not occur again, and that the way in which the money was spent should be shown by the Science and Art Department. There was another matter in the Accounts this year. He found a sum charged for police. Last year it was £6,630, and that included the extra amount for the Exhibition. But this year the sum amounted to £8,040, being an increase of £1,410. There were no Estimates to show the reason for that increase, or whether the police were not being paid at too high a rate. At all events, there were then very large Estimates over which Parliament had no sort of control, and there was no guarantee that whatever had occurred last year would not happen again. He had felt it his duty to bring the subject before the Committee, in order that they might have some assurance from the Treasury that the matter should be carefully considered. His Colleague, who was un-

    1259
    fortunately absent, took the same interest as himself in this matter, and he had given Notice to reduce the Tote by the sum of £10,000, and he justified that reduction under the principal heads with which he had reason to find fault. Under all the circumstances, although he did not desire to reduce the expenditure, yet, in order to bring the matter before the Committee, he felt that the proper course for him to adopt would be to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £10,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £195,014, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith." —(Mr. Errington.)
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that there was no ground for the statement that the Accounts were presented to Parliament in a confused manner, and that while the Estimates for last year showed a saving, there was an excess of £16,000. The fact was, that in these Votes too much information was given. The principal object was to show, as a general result, at the end of the year, the manner in which the Department had spent the sum which had been voted. It was a necessary consequence of the expenditure of the Science and Art Department being divided into so many heads and sub-heads, that there should be a considerable difference between the Estimates and the Expenditure. With regard to the principal complaint made by the hon. Member—that certain sums had been spent last year without the authority of Parliament—he thought he could clear that matter up. It was proposed that there should be a general Loan Exhibition of Scientific Apparatus at South Kensington. The proposal was immediately taken up by the different Scientific Societies of London. There was no reason to suppose that the Exhibition would be very large, or would occasion any great expenditure. The sanction of the Treasury was given to an expenditure of about £2,000 on it; but after the announcement of the Exhibition, various Scientific Societies of Paris, Berlin, and other places, took the matter up, and requested permission to send scientific apparatus to South Ken-
    1260
    sington. The Science and Art Department were put in the position of having to choose between two things—either to stop the Exhibition altogether, or to incur a largely increased expenditure in holding the Exhibition. It was decided that it would be best to hold the Exhibition, and that determination of the Department was communicated to the Treasury, who where also informed that the expenses would be largely increased. The moment the Science and Art Department found they had exceeded their estimated expenditure, they at once set to work to cut down the expenses under other heads, and they succeeded in doing so to a considerable extent. As regarded the item to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention—the increase in the Vote over last year—it was entirely due to a proposal to which the Treasury had assented, which was, that this year an extra shilling wages should be paid to the constables on duty on public occasions. Hoping he had given a satisfactory answer to all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, he trusted he would allow the Vote to pass.
    MR. ERRINGTONfelt it his duty, after the statement of the noble Lord, to call attention to the Treasury Minute, in which the Science and Art Department were severely rebuked for exceeding their expenditure without the sanction of the Treasury. He objected to the noble Lord's proposal that, in future, a sum of money should be placed at the disposal of the Science and Art Department to spend as they liked; and he thought the money should be under the control of Parliament, in detail. Still, under the circumstances, he would withdraw his Motion.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought the hon. Member was perfectly justified in bringing the matter before the House. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had mentioned the subject before, and he was sorry his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council had made the reply he had. As a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was bound to say that a gross irregularity had been committed by the Department of Science and Art. The Committee had thought when any extra money was required the Department was absolutely bound to get the sanction of the Treasury before spending a penny. The Committee

    1261
    could not help feeling that the accounts had been manipulated in a way in which they ought not to have been, and they had expressed a hope that no such occurrence would have to be complained of in the future.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (3.) £331,812, to complete the sum for Public Education, Scotland.
    (4.) £1,835, to complete the sum for the Board of Education, Scotland.
    (5.) £84,790, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
    MR. SPENCER WALPOLEobserved that the increase of the Museum Estimates this year was mainly owing to the arrangement which the Treasury had sanctioned in the salaries of the keepers and other officers of that institution; and he was sure that the House would not grudge an improvement in the salaries and positions of these gentlemen, whose duties were discharged to the entire satisfaction of the country. He wished to mention to the House what he considered to be a rare circumstance. Perhaps few hon. Members or persons in the country were aware that about 200 years ago the then Emperor of China ordered the commencement of a remarkable work, embracing all scientific researches and learning of the country from a period of 1,000 years before Christ down to the year 1720. The preparation of the work was ordered in 1662, and the labour on it was continued for about 60 years. Special types were struck for the purpose, and as these were subsequently broken up for other requirements, there was no chance of any further number of copies than those originally printed. The work so printed consisted of 5,120 volumes, not ordinary volumes like those we were accustomed to in England, but about double the size of the present number of The Nineteenth Century. There were 100 sets of these volumes printed, and the existence of one set for sale in the market became known to the Trustees two years ago. They secured it, and, although they gave £1,550 for it, he was sure everyone would feel that the nation had thereby secured a valuable contribution to Oriental literature; and those interested in the matter would have an opportunity hereafter of
    1262
    acquiring a knowledge of the Eastern world and its literature, not as seen through European spectacles and from European observation, but written by the Chinese themselves in their own words and with their own habits of thought and observation.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSbelieved he was one of the few Members of the House who sometimes availed himself of the opportunity of doing work at the Museum, and he bore testimony to the efficient service rendered by the officials, and he was glad of the increase of salaries to them. And while he did not grudge the expenditure upon Chinese literature, he must express his regret at seeing so many gaps in the historical library of the institution, especially of works referring to the history of our own country. He called upon the Trustees to give attention to the matter.
    MR. SPENCER WALPOLEwas not aware that such gaps existed, but he assured the hon. Member he would call attention to them.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) £9,133, to complete the sum for the National Gallery.
    (7.) £1,500, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
    (8.) £12,850, to complete the sum for Learned Societies and Scientific Investigation.
    MR. WHITWELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury for explanations as to the increase to the Meteorological Office.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas informed that the increase occurred in consequence of a number of special researches and experiments, for which an additional sum of £500 had been granted. There had also been an increased payment to the extent of £250 made to the Council, while the telegrams of storm-warnings had cost about £200 more. Then there was the additional amount of £250 for paid Inspectors in Scotland and Ireland. Great advantage had been derived from the extension of this particular branch of scientific investigation, and owing to the extra work of the Council, it had been found necessary to increase their salaries.
    MR. WHITWELLassented to the great usefulness of investigations under the observation of such a Society.
    MR. M'LARENobserved, that the £1,000 voted last year to the Scotch Meteorological Society had been omitted this year. He knew the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not promise to continue it, but he should like to say a word on the subject. They had heard that evening of increases of salary to the officers of the English Meteorological Department; whereas it was well known that they were already well paid, one man having as much as £900 a-year. The Meteorological Society of Scotland paid no salaries except to the Secretary; and all the observations made, and which were so valuable, were obtained and paid for by voluntary contributions. That being so, he thought it very unfair that the Scotch Society should be treated so shabbily.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, a Committee of the Treasury was appointed in 1875 to consider the whole matter, and they sat until 1877. They considered the whole matter, and recommended that a single Vote should be taken, the money being disposed of by the Meteorological Council in London. It was on the recommendation of that Committee, the Members of which had gone carefully into the whole subject, that the amount was voted, and they also recommended the appointment of a Council, at salaries, to administer the sum voted.
    MR. M'LARENwas quite aware of the Report when he had first spoken on the subject. It was a Committee, not appointed by the House, but by the Treasury—a Committee of scientific men, with only one Representative of Scotland, and they reported that they should have so much money to spend themselves. The Secretary to the Treasury had not said a single word of the injustice done to Scotland by the withdrawal of the £1,000, seeing that so much valuable work was done by that Society.
    MR. VANS AGNEWsaid, it was not of the Report that they complained, but of the decision of the Government founded on that Report. The English Meteorological Society availed themselves of the observations made in Scotland, and yet the Government gave no assistance to the Scotch Society. The Meteorological Society of Scotland got its valuable Reports gratuitously, the only expense they were put to being the small salary of the Secretary. He con-
    1264
    fessed he thought there were very strong grounds for complaint as to the way the Government had dealt with this matter, and great dissatisfaction had been caused in Scotland thereby.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, hon. Members were labouring under a misapprehension when they said a grant was made to the English Meteorological Society and not to the Scotch Society. There was no grant of any sort or kind made to the English Meteorological Society. The English Meteorological Council was a different thing altogether. [Mr. M'LAREN: I admit that I made a verbal error.] It was more than a verbal error. It was an entirely different thing. The history of the case was this. Certain work used to be done by the Board of Trade through Admiral Fitzroy, and, after his death, the work was still carried on by the Board of Trade. But, after some time, the Board of Trade found they were not very competent to do that kind of work, and that it would be better to hand it over to some other body with scientific attainments. They went to the Royal Society, and asked that Society to undertake to do the work, a certain sum of money to be paid by the Government, equivalent to the work performed. That went on for some time, and, subsequently, the work was taken from the Royal Society and placed in the hands of a body constituted for the purpose—the Meteorological Council. This was, in fact, a body in the nature of a Government Department, which received a certain sum for doing certain work for the Government. No grant was made to the Society, for the purpose of encouraging that Society, as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to imagine. The Department was constituted for the purpose of doing certain Government work. Undoubtedly, the Scotch Society was a very excellent body. It was a body which deserved the highest respect. But it was impossible for the Government to make grants to all scientific societies. They made none whatever to the Meteorological Society of England. With regard to the Society of Scotland, its services had, to a certain extent, been made use of by the Government, and a certain sum given in compensation for those services. He was not quite sure what the arrangements were as to the employment of the Meteorological Society of Scotland; but he believed, to a cer-

    1265
    tain extent, there were services rendered which were paid for.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that the explanation was, no doubt, a correct one; but he hoped, that next year the country would know what it was getting for its money.
    MR. WHITWELLobserved, that the Accounts stated that the expenditure was on behalf of certain Learned Societies in Great Britain and Ireland. If any error had been made by the Committee in supposing the money was voted to Learned Societies as such, it arose from the mode in which the information was given.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £8,244, to complete the sum for the London University.
    (10.) £3,010, to complete the sum for the Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report).
    (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £24,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Royal Commission appointed in connection with the International Exhibition at Paris, 1878."
    MR. MELDONsaid, he should have to move to reduce this Vote. The Royal Commission charged with the conduct of this matter had voted the sum of £100 for the purpose of sending British artizans to the Paris Exhibition; voluntary associations were also got up for the purpose of obtaining subscriptions to enable artizans to visit the Exhibition. When he had asked a Question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to this matter, the right hon. Baronet had informed him that the Royal Commission was an independent body, and that he had no authority on the subject. By the courtesy of another hon. Member, he was informed that the sum of £100 was granted for the purpose of enabling artizans from the United Kingdom to visit the Exhibition, and that it was possible to have a portion of that money allocated for the purpose of sending Irish artizans to Paris. Accordingly, considerable pres-
    1266
    sure had been brought to bear upon the Commissioners to induce them to assist in sending Irish artizans. They refused to do so without receiving a subscription, and he thought it invidious that a Commission of this kind should make any distinction between English, Scotch, and Irish artizans. He did not know whether any application had been made on behalf of the Scotch; but by reason of the slight put upon Irish artizans, he felt compelled to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £33, that being the estimated share of the Irish artizans in the £100 granted to assist artizans in visiting the Exhibition.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £24,467, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Royal Commission appointed in connection with the International Exhibition at Paris, 1878."—(Mr. Melton.)
    MR. M'LARENwas quite sure that no more benefit had been obtained from this grant by the Scotch than by the Irish artizans.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that he had the honour to be a Member of the Royal Commission, and also of the sub-Committee appointed to superintend the sending of British artizans to the Paris Exhibition. He could assure the hon. and learned Member that the Royal Commission knew no distinction between Irish, Scotch, and English artizans. A sum of between £2,000 and £3,000 had been raised entirely by voluntary contributions; and that, with the £100 voted by the Commissioners, was the amount which was available for sending artizans to the Paris Exhibition. He did not know any more arduous task than that which the Commissioners had had to perform, having to pay their own expenses to Paris, and being called upon to give subscriptions out of their own pockets in addition. And he could not but mention the praiseworthy part taken by their Chairman, the Prince of Wales, in this matter. Anyone who had been in Paris must have seen the way in which he had discharged his duties, and must have admired his excellent conduct of the whole arrangements of the British section of the Exhibition. The French people had been more gratified with

    1267
    what the Prince of Wales had done, in regard to the Paris Exhibition, than they would have been by years of diplomatic negotiation. His general conduct of the business was excellent, and his affability and courtesy to everyone had given the greatest satisfaction. With regard to this miserable £100, it had been voted by the Commissioners out of the paltry sum granted them. He would explain the matter to the Committee; and he would say, in passing, that he knew some gentlemen on the Commission, though without seats in that House, who had been ashamed at the expenses which had been thrown on the Prince of Wales. If a reception were given to the French. Commissioners, the Prince of Wales had had to pay for it out of his own pocket. But out of the paltry sum allowed them, the Commissioners had granted this £100 towards the expenses of artizans. They had asked the great towns in England to subscribe, and many towns had subscribed, and sent 20 persons each to Paris at their own expense; but what had Dublin done? No money had been raised from her for the purpose of sending artizans to the Exhibition. The money voted by the Commissioners had been spent in making arrangements for the artizans when they reached Paris. The Commission had arranged that for 20 s. they should be carried to Paris and back, and £100 was all that was available towards paying the extra expenses. Any sum that the city of Dublin might subscribe would go towards the expenses of the Dublin artizans, and they would receive the benefit of the £100 subscribed by the Royal Commission in the facilities which had been provided for them in Paris. Not one shilling of the money had gone especially for English artizans as distinguished from Scotch or Irish; and Ireland would obtain its full share, not only of the £100, but of the English subscriptions.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped that the Motion would not be pressed. The £ 100 had been added by the Commissioners to sums they had received from subscriptions towards sending artizans from England, Scotland, and Ireland to the Exhibition. With regard to what had been said as to the amount of the sum allowed to the English Commissioners at the Paris Exhibition, he would observe that it was equal to what
    1268
    had been voted in the cases of the Vienna and Philadelphia Exhibitions.
    MR. MUNDELLAthought that the Paris Exhibition could not be put upon the same footing as those at Vienna and Philadelphia. It was necessary for England to make a better appearance at Paris than at either of the other places.
    MR. MELDONcould not admit that the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had in any way given a satisfactory explanation. His statement was that subscriptions were raised in England for the purpose of sending English artizans to the Paris Exhibition, and that the Commissioners gave £100 to the fund. It was said that the Commissioners had provided certain facilities for artizans, and that they were intended for Irish and Scotch, as well as English, workmen. That was scarcely an accurate statement, after what had taken place, for the managers of the Irish subscriptions made a communication to the Commissioners with reference to sending Irish artizans. They were willing to accept aid in any shape or way; but they were told that unless the Irish Committee was prepared to guarantee £10 for each artizan sent from Ireland to Paris, they would receive no aid from the Royal Commission. Considering that the amount necessary for sending Irish artizans to Paris was £7, it was hard to ask the Irish Committee to spend £3 more before it could receive any benefit from the sums voted for the express purpose of sending artizans to Paris. It was unfair to limit the money for the benefit of the British artizan, for Irish artizans had the same right to the fund. He should take the opinion of the House upon his Motion.
    MR. BELLwould be sorry if a division were taken upon this Motion. He had the honour to be one of the Royal Commissioners, and could say that no distinction was made between English, Scotch, or Irish artizans. With regard to the sum voted by Parliament towards the expenses of the Commission, it would fall short by £10,000 of what was required.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) would write to him, he would communicate with Lord Spencer, the Chairman of the sub-Committee, and care should be taken that Irish arti-

    1269
    zans should have the same advantages as the English and Scotch; and the hon. Member should be satisfied that the Committee made no distinction between one nationality and another. He could assure him that there was no intention to show partiality to any branch of the United Kingdom.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that, perhaps, the hon. Member would state what facilities would be given to Irish artizans visiting the Paris Exhibition. He should also like to know what conditions they must comply with to get the same facilities as English artizans?
    MR. M. BROOKSwas under the impression that funds were subscribed specially for English workmen. He understood now that, although subscriptions had been given towards artizans from any particular place, yet that artizans from any town would be sent to Paris by means of subscriptions of the towns generally.
    MR. MUNDELLAstated that the facilities given to artizans consisted of cheap travelling, guides, and catalogues. The journey cost them £1; and, in this respect, Dublin enjoyed the same facilities as Sheffield.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that, after that explanation, he would withdraw his Motion. The fact was that in Dublin they could send their artizans to Paris for £7; but in England they had to pay £10 before they could be sent.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (12.) £14,074, to complete the sum for the Universities, &c. in Scotland.
    (13.) £1,580, to complete the sum for the National Gallery, &c. Scotland.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (14.) £50,788, to complete the sum for the Lord Advocate and Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
    (15.) £46,223, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
    MR. M'LARENwished, before this Vote was taken, to draw the attention of the Lord Advocate and the Government to the grievance under which the clerks in the Sasine Office and the Department of the Lord Clerk Register in Edinburgh suffered. These clerks were
    1270
    very badly paid, and their case was the stronger from the fact that, while the expenditure in the Department of the Lord Clerk Register and Sasine Office was £36,000, the fees from registration amounted to £44,000. There was, therefore, no ground for saying that the clerks in the Office were asking for money which was not gained on their establishment. Now that the Bill in reference to these matters had been stopped, he wished to know whether the arrangement formerly entered into would be carried into effect. A number of these clerks had been in the Office many years, at salaries of £90 a-year; and one, who had been 50 years in the Office, was recently dismissed without any pension or allowance whatever. Altogether, the matter required a good deal of investigation.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEvery much feared that the object which the hon. Member for Edinburgh was anxious to obtain could not be effected without the authority of Parliament. There were now a number of clerks in the Office of the Lord Clerk Register in Edinburgh who were not Civil servants, and that was the position in which they had been placed by the Act of Parliament passed in 1868. Under that Statute, a public officer in a Department receiving about £30,000 a-year was made personally responsible for all mistakes made by his clerks. The head of the Department could hardly be held responsible if he were placed in the position of having Civil servants under him. It was a question very much debated before the Act was passed, whether such responsibility should attach to his office, and it was obvious that so long as a man was placed in that position, he must be allowed facilities in the appointment and management of those he employed. So long as clerks were placed in that subordinate position, they could not be looked upon as Civil servants. It was not in contemplation by the Government to make any alteration in that respect, nor was it in the power of the Government to make it of their own accord, for it could only be done by the sanction of the Legislature.
    MR. M'LARENobserved, that the Lord Advocate had made it clear that the Government could not make these men into Civil servants without an Act of Parliament. But what the Government

    1271
    might do was to raise their salaries. These gentlemen were doing the work required at very miserable salaries, and he could see no reason why their salaries should not be increased by the Treasury in the same manner as would have been done if the Bill had passed.
    THE LORD ADVOCATEthought the hon. Member was somewhat under a misapprehension. He believed the whole of the salaries paid in that Office were quite sufficient for the services performed. On the other hand, no doubt, grievances existed which had come under the notice of the Government, more particularly that promotion did not go on in that Office in the usual way. The clerks in the Office in question alleged that they did not get promoted, and the reason was that, as the head of the Department appointed the clerks, and was alone responsible, he might bring in any outsider, and put him over the heads of those already in the Office. The grievance complained of was not that the salaries paid to the officials were insufficient, but that the clerks in the Office earning a certain salary had no certainty, such as Civil servants possessed, of rising into a higher class.
    Vote agreed to.
    (16.) £27,380, to complete the sum for the Register House Departments, Edinburgh.
    (17.) £61,160, to complete the sum for Prisons, Scotland.
    (18.) £65,678, to complete the sum for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland.
    (19.) £29,867, to complete the sum for the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, &c. Ireland.
    (20.) £21,169, to complete the sum for the Queen's Bench, &c. Divisions, Ireland.
    (21.) £8,662, to complete the sum for Land Judges' Offices, Ireland.
    MR. WHITWELLasked, in what position the House was likely to be in regard to this Court? Although so large a sum was asked in the House, the income received by fees and stamps was only £5,650. As this Court was established for the convenience of the owners of land in Ireland, he hoped, as soon as possible, the fees would be sufficient to
    1272
    recoup the expenses of the Court. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would be able to hold out a hope that this would soon be the case.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he might state to the hon. Member who had just sat down that the Landed Estates Court in Ireland was a great convenience, and likely to be more so; because, under the Irish Judicature Act, the work of the Receiver Master of Chancery was also done by that Court. Therefore, it was not fair to set off the cost of the Court as against the receipts for fees and stamps. Besides, it must be borne in mind that the Court had produced large sums for the Exchequer in times past, when the work was vastly in excess of what it was now. The work varied from year to year, one being very light, and the other very heavy. There was one question to which he wished to call the attention of the Attorney General for Ireland. By the Judicature (Ireland) Act, one of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court was liable to go circuit, and at the recent Assizes one of the Judges did go circuit, the result being to create enormous inconvenience in the Court. True, one Judge remained constantly at the Court, and it ought to be provided that he should discharge any pressing duties which the other Judge would be called upon to perform. He said this with all the more reason, because, previous to the appointment of Judge Ormsby, Judge Flanagan intimated over and over again that he was quite able to discharge the entire duties of the Court. Under those circumstances, it was only fair and reasonable that when one of the Judges was called away to do Common Law business in his absence, the business of the Landed Estates Court should be discharged by the remaining Judge. Great inconvenience had now been caused by Judge Ormsby going circuit, and as his work had not been discharged in his absence, the Judge, at great inconvenience, had had to go to Dublin to hear the cases which would otherwise have to stand over until after the Vacation. He hoped this would not again arise, and it need not if Judge Flanagan were ordered to do the whole of the work when Judge Ormsby was away.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)thought the Landed Estates Court worked very well,

    1273
    and very efficiently, and was not more expensive than anyone would expect it to be, having regard to the work cast upon it. There were few Courts—and he did not know that it was desirable there should be more in the interests of justice and of suitors—which were practically self-supporting. As had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), the receipts of the Landed Estates Courts varied very much. Sometimes they were high, and sometimes low; but whatever was received went to the reduction of the cost. And as the hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out, since the passing of the Judicature Act a very large and a rather expensive Department had been added to the Landed Estates Court, thereby saving the salary of a Receiver Master in Chancery, and giving a substantial proof of the fact that economy had not been lost sight of in the matter. In reference to what had been said as to the inconvenience of one of the Judges going on circuit, he could only say that he did not think any inconvenience would be experienced. This Session he had introduced a Bill which had received the Royal Assent, by which it might be arranged that other Judges might go circuit, and if a Land Judge could not be spared, the Lord Chancellor could readily see that other arrangements were adopted.
    Vote agreed to.
    (22.) £8,567, to complete the sum for Probate, &c. Registries, Ireland.
    (23.) £7,738, to complete the sum for the Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland.
    (24.) £1,280, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court, Registry, Ireland.
    (25.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £14,672, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office for the Registration of Deeds in Ireland."
    MR. ERRINGTONasked if any progress had been made with the scheme as to retiring the clerks in this Office. A Commission met some time ago, and he desired to know what they had done in the matter—whether they had altered the pay or position of any clerk?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, a Committee had been appointed, but their Report would hardly be presented much before January next. The Commission, presided over by the Chief Justice of Ireland, had been working steadily, taking evidence and making close inquiries.
    MR. MELDONsaid, two points arose under the Vote on which he should like to have some explanations. In the first place, all promotion amongst the clerks in the Office had been stopped for two or three years. It was a rule and matter of right that when a senior clerk died or retired there should be promotion amongst the junior clerks. But this arrangement had not been adhered to; because, for three years past, there had been a vacancy amongst the first-class clerks to which no one had been promoted. When this question was agitated two years since, the answer given was that there was to be an alteration in the Office; but that had not yet taken place, and there were two clerks in the Office who had been illegally deprived of their promotion. There was certainly no just reason for this. The other question to which he wished to refer was of even greater interest. The number of clerks in the Registration of Deeds Office was put down as 15; but, as a matter of fact, there had been only 14 there for some time. One had for years past been drawing the whole of his pay; while, as he had been informed, he was not doing an atom for the Public Service. That clerk was, he believed, engaged in making experiments for lifting the Vanguard, and did nothing in the Office, even when it was said that the staff was short-handed. Two years ago, when he drew attention to this, he was told that there was a Committee appointed to inquire into some new plan for the registration of deeds, and that this official was engaged with that Committee in making experiments. That Committee had now discharged its functions; but still this gentleman drew over £300 a-year for doing nothing. In fact, it was actually said he had had £5,000 out of the Government for doing nothing. He (Mr. Meldon) wanted to know why the Registration of Deeds Office should be insufficiently manned and have faults found with it, when a member of its staff was doing nothing,

    1275
    He had no objection if a gentleman discharged duties worth £300 a-year that he should be paid that sum; but he did object that he should appear as one of the clerks in the Office, and yet do no work.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, the gentleman to whom the hon. and learned Member referred had for some time been engaged in inventing a process by which the work of the Department could be much more rapidly done than by a staff of clerks. Having succeeded in completing his plans, how could it be said that the public time had been wasted, whereas the public must be the gainers? The invention was said to be a very valuable one, and he (Major Nolan) believed that a great deal of jealousy had been created against the inventor, because it was known that by its use many clerks would be discharged.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he admitted that two years ago a Committee had been appointed to report on this invention; and Mr. Dillon, the clerk he alluded to, was given leave of absence for the purpose of completing the machine. Although he did not then think it was at all satisfactory that he should be drawing a salary from the Registration of Deeds Office, he did not then discuss the matter. But the Committee had reported, and, of course, since then, Mr. Dillon could not have had anything to do. He certainly had good ideas of raising ships, and he thought of raising the Vanguard, and a variety of other matters. Certainly this was not proper, and he challenged anyone to say that Mr. Dillon had been doing the Government work. He objected to a man having £300 a-year and doing nothing, and such a state of things ought to be put an end to.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he was able to state, from his own knowledge, that there had been great neglect in carrying out the rules of the Office relating to promotion. Two years ago he waited upon the then Secretary to the Treasury and now the First Lord of the Admiralty in relation to the matter, and a promise was given that the grievance the clerks suffered under should be remedied. As he (Mr. M. Brooks) felt so strongly on the subject, he was greatly disposed to move the reduction of the Vote by £630, the salary of the two clerks. He was reluctant so to act, and
    1276
    so to delay the time of the Committee; but it appeared to him that there was no other mode of altering the present state of things in the Department. Remembering that at present there was a great delay in the work of the Department, he would, to protest against the action of the Government, move to reduce the Vote by £630.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £14,042, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office for the Registration of Deeds in Ireland."—(Mr. Maurice Brooks.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the matter would have consideration.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he had been told that, in consequence of the changes proposed by Mr. Dillon, promotion was stopped in the Office. There was no reason why that promotion should be any longer retarded, and the grievance should be remedied at once.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the hon. Member for Dublin was mistaken in stating that he had said the matter should be remedied. What he did promise was that justice should be done, and a Royal Commission was appointed to deal with the whole question. But nothing could be done until their Report was received.
    MR. MELDONbelieved there was no legal right to keep men from their promotion. When a first-class clerk died or retired, a second should take the place, and a third be removed to the office of the second. Well, three or four years ago, a first-class clerk in the Registration of Deeds Office died; and a second-class clerk, who was entitled to be promoted, asked to have his place. This request was refused, the applicant being told that certain arrangements were about to be made. Hon. Members of that House had interfered in the matter with a view to getting the decision of the Government altered. They, too, were told that changes were to take place; but nothing had been done, and now there was more than one vacancy. They were told that the Commission would report next year; but he was positive that nothing had been arranged to provide a substitute

    1277
    for the present system of registration. Under those circumstances, he thought it exceedingly hard that for three years gentlemen entitled to promotion should have been kept without it. And even if ultimately they were raised to the positions they ought to occupy, they would have lost an increased salary for three years. That was a great hardship, and the Treasury ought not to be so hard on their employés.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (26.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £2,155, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Office for the Registration of Judgments in Ireland."
    MR. HOPWOODobserved that there was a long list of Orders to run through, and he thought sufficient progress had been made for that night. He should, therefore, move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Hopwood.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Committee would proceed with the Votes.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that on one of these Votes — Miscellaneous Legal Charges—a very important discussion would arise. It would facilitate discussion if the accepted Votes were taken, and the House adjourned.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was willing to go on with the unopposed Votes only.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (27.) £103,885, to complete the sum for the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) BILL — [Lords] — [BILL 286.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  A Clause (Declaration of infected area in foot-and-mouth disease by Privy Council,)—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson,) —added.
  Amendments made.
  Clause 35 (Local authorities to be treated as incorporated).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmoved, in page 19, at end, to add as new paragraph—
  "(3.) Where the district or part of a district of a local authority, described in the Second Schedule, is or comprises, or is comprised in a port or part of a port, the Privy Council may from time to time, if they think fit, in relation to that port or part of a port, by Order, make any body, other than the body constituted the local authority by the Second Schedule, the local authority for the purposes of the provisions of this Act relating to foreign animals, and, in connection with the local authority so made, prescribe the local rate, if any and the clerk of the local authority."
  MR. WHITWELLthought that this clause had the appearance of enabling the Privy Council to punish a local authority by superseding their authority, though legally constituted.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the clause was amended from that which was struck out of the Bill when passing through Committee. The object was in certain ports, such as Liverpool, Birkenhead, Sunderland, and Hull, where the local authority were not the controlling authority, to enable the Privy Council to put them in that position. At first it was intended to limit the clause to the ports he had quoted; but, on consideration, he had extended it to all.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 60 (Application of Parts II. and III. to Scotland).
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONproposed, in page 28, line 23, to leave out "made under this Act," and insert, as new paragraph—
  "(ii.) If, where required by this Act to keep an animal separate so far as practicable, or to give notice of disease with all practicable speed, he fails to do so,"
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he objected to the alteration proposed to be made in this clause, and thought it was better as it stood. The effect of the alteration would be to give a local authority power to make any regulations it pleased.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONremarked, that there had been no real alteration; but the words "made under this Act" were only struck out as unnecessary.
  MR. MELDONsaid, that as the only objection to the clause as it stood rested on tautology, it would, in his opinion, be better to leave the words in rather than run the risk of passing a clause giving to the local authority power to make any regulations they liked.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 29, line 5, to leave out after the word "suspected," to the end of the Clause, and insert as new paragraph,—"(2.) And on a second conviction within a period of twelve months of an offence against any one of the sub-sections of this section, he shall be liable, in the discretion of the court of summary jurisdiction before which he is convicted, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one month, with or without hard labour, in lieu of the pecuniary penalty to which he is liable under this Act." —(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MAJOR NOLANproposed, as an Amendment, to strike out the words "with or" from the clause, thus making any person re-convicted liable only to imprisonment without hard labour. He did not wish to divide upon the matter; but he thought it was too much for a second offence to make a person liable to hard labour. Imprisonment to a person in his position would be quite sufficient punishment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "with or."—(Major Nolan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'with or' stand part of the proposed Amendment,"
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he would tell the hon. and gallant Member why the Amendment could not be accepted. He had endeavoured to limit, as far as possible, the penalties in these cases. He had provided that the punishment of imprisonment with or without hard labour should only be inflicted for the second offence within a period of 12 months of a similar one. It was not to be a second offence against any section, but an offence similar to the one previously committed. Under these circumstances, magistrates were given discretion to deal with offences as the justice of the case required, and anyone offending in the way he had stated would be justly considered a persistent violator of the law, and should be punished accordingly. For the first offence confinement for one month was the limit.
  MR. MELDONobserved, that to those who would probably come under the operation of the Bill imprisonment alone, without hard labour, would be a sufficient degradation. The subject was one of very considerable importance, and if the Government pressed the clause, he would move that the debate be now adjourned.
  MR. COURTNEYseconded the Motion. He said that, according to the clause, a man was liable to imprisonment with hard labour upon a second conviction within 12 months of any offence against "any one of the subsections of this section." He did not, therefore, understand how the Secretary to the Treasury could say that the second offence must be a similar one to the first.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Meldon.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he had been informed by the draftsman to whom the preparation of the clause had been intrusted that it carried out the instructions he had given, and that the only cases where imprisonment with hard labour could be inflicted for a second offence, was if such an offence be against the same section as that under which the previous conviction had taken place. The Government had adopted these provisions on the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), although they had not carried

  1281
  them out so stringently as he had recommended.
  MAJOR NOLANthought that the debate should be adjourned, and that a provision by which a man could be sentenced to hard labour should not be passed without full consideration. Those Members who represented the agricultural interests would incur much odium, if they permitted such a clause as this to pass.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Consolidated Fund (No. 4) *; Arranmore Polling District (Ireland) * (189); Locomotives on Highways (Scotland) * (190).
Second Reading—Tenant Right (Ireland) (156), negatived.
Committee—Highways * (177–192).
Committee—Report—Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne (Establishment) * (180); Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) (168); Elders Widows' Fund* (182).
Report—Idiots, &c. (Ireland) * (187).

INDIA—TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE.—PETITION.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF N0ETHBEOOKrose to present a Petition from the Inhabitants of Calcutta and its vicinity, on the subject of the recent increase of Taxation and of the Military and Public
  1140
  Works Expenditure in India. The Petition was signed by 2,000 persons, and from his personal knowledge he could state that among the Petitioners were some Native gentlemen who occupied the highest positions in the Province of Bengal. Among them were Maharajah Joteendro Mohun Tagore, one of the Members of the Legislative Council of India; Maharajah Narendra Krishna, lately a Member of the Legislative Council of India; Members of the Legislative Council of Bengal, both Mussulman and Hindoo, one of the latter being Kristodas Pal, the editor of The Hindoo Patriot, a journal written entirely in English by Natives of Bengal, which, though freely criticizing the acts of the authorities in India, was in its whole tone and spirit thoroughly loyal to the British Government. The Petition commenced by stating that—
  "The Petitioners had observed with a deep feeling of gratitude the awakened interest of the people of the United Kingdom in the welfare of the subjects of the British Crown in India, as evidenced by their contributions for the relief of the sufferers by Famine."
  They went on to say that—
  "When the intelligence of the heavy strain upon the Indian Revenue, in consequence of the recent Famine, reached the United Kingdom, proposals wore made at several influential public meetings held at great centres of national life, for giving a substantial grant of millions of pounds sterling from the Imperial Exchequer to supplement the means of the Government of India for the alleviation of sufferings from the Famine; that the Petitioners could not in adequate terms express their gratitude for the benevolent feeling which prompted these proposals, but happily the Government of India had been able to fulfil its mission of mercy without the suggested contribution from the Imperial Government. The Famine Expenditure had, however, necessitated heavy taxation, amounting to £1,500,000 per annum, and while the Petitioners, as indeed the people of India generally, considered it their loyal duty to submit to all such additional taxation as might be necessary for the well-being of their country, they could not conceal their earnest conviction that the new burdens imposed would press severely upon the poorer classes, who constitute the mass of the population, and that if they were made permanent, as they had been made by the recent fiscal measures, the taxpayers had a good reason for complaint when no attempt had been made to afford them relief by reduction of expenditure, for which the Petitioners considered there was legitimate and ample room."
  The Petitioners then proceeded to refer at some length to several heads of expenditure, in which they submitted that reductions could be made.

  1141
  As the Petition was dated from Calcutta as far back as March in the present year, he thought it right to explain why it had not been presented before. The fact was that in forwarding the Petition, the Secretary to the Petition Committee wrote to him a letter, in which there was this statement—
  "I have the honour to forward by this mail the Petition to the House of Lords regarding Indian Expenditure and Taxation, signed by 2,000 persons. The Committee regret that, since the adoption of the Petition at the public meeting held in this city on the 2nd of March last, events in Europe have taken a gloomy turn, which may compel England to have recourse to arms for the protection of British interests. At a time like this, it may be inopportune to urge upon Parliament the question of the adjustment of the military charges of England in relation to India on a fair and equitable basis, which will necessarily lead to further burdens upon the Imperial Exchequer."
  He thought the sentiments expressed in that letter were such as to do credit to the Petitioners. The fact that they did not wish the Petition to be presented at a time when the state of affairs on the Continent of Europe was in so uncertain a condition showed a very loyal feeling on their part, which would doubtless be appreciated by their Lordships.
  As regards his (the Earl of North-brook's) position with respect to the Petition—knowing the worth and character of the Petitioners—seeing that the Petition was written in the most loyal and proper spirit—and that, while he could not entirely agree with its contents, there was very much with which he concurred; he thought that there was no reason, notwithstanding the high position he had recently filled in India, to prevent him from presenting the Petition.
  Turning to the contents of the Petition, the first head of Expenditure to which the Petitioners drew attention was the military. They wished for a re-adjustment of the principle on which the English and the Indian shares of the Home Expenditure for Her Majesty's Forces serving in India were now apportioned.
  The Petitioners went into considerable detail on this subject, showing that there had been an increase of something like £l,000,000 sterling in the Home Charges of the British Army in India. In asking that these charges should be revised, the Petitioners had only done the same
  1142
  thing that had been done by successive Secretaries of State for India. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had urged the claims of India in terms nearly as strong as those which were used by the Duke of Argyll. Successive Governments of India had expressed similar opinions. When he (the Earl of Northbrook) was in India, he had addressed several despatches to the Secretary of State, urging that those charges should be revised, to the relief of the Indian finances. The same views were entertained by his successor (Lord Lytton). Sir John Strachey, the Financial Member of the Council of the Viceroy, in a speech delivered by him in the Legislative Council on the 27th December last, said—
  "Turning to the Military Expenditure, I examined in some detail in my Minute laid before the Council on the 15th of March, the accounts of the Army. I showed that it now costs upwards of £17,000,000 a-year; that its cost has increased by upwards of £1,000,000 since 1875–6; and that a large share of this increase is in the Expenditure recorded in the Home accounts. I need not recapitulate the details thus reviewed, but I will repeat the conclusion, which I then stated as follows:—
  "The Government of India must certainly endeavour to find the means of meeting the increased Military Charges, some of which are apparently inevitable, by economies in other Departments of the Military Service; this endeavour must be largely dependent for success upon the support of Her Majesty's Government. I do not assert that the whole of the additional Expenditure on the Army has not been incurred for excellent objects, or that it could have been avoided; but that the Indian Revenues are liable to have great charges thrown upon them without the Government of India being eon-suited, and almost without any power of remonstrance, is a fact the gravity of which can hardly be exaggerated.'
  "We have not neglected this matter during the year; it has been the subject of elaborate inquiry, the results of which have still to be considered. "Whether we shall not be able to carry out reductions which some high authorities have advocated depends upon considerations, the effect of which on the ultimate conclusions of the Government I cannot now foresee. Judging from the past, we may esteem ourselves fortunate if further additions to the Homo Military Charges are not thrown upon us; but what is possible on our part to prevent such a result shall certainly be done. We know that we may rely upon the support of the Secretary of State in securing this object, and we may hope that some re-consideration of the burden thrown upon us, on account of this branch of charge, may be found possible, which shall lead to an arrangement more consistent with our own views of what is equitable to India."
  The Petitioners showed that many Committees had considered this ques-

  1143
  tion, the last being a Committee presided over by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie), in June, 1875; but that, hitherto, there had been no satisfactory result. Neither the Petitioners nor he (the Earl of Northbrook) supposed that there was any desire on the part of the Secretaries of State for War to act unjustly to India. He was certain that it was the desire of his noble Friend behind him (Viscount Cardwell) to act in this, as in all other matters, with perfect fairness and justice, and he had full confidence that Her Majesty's present Government wished to do what was right in the matter. He would not dwell further on this part of the subject, more especially as he understood that the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cranbrook) had some information to convey to their Lordships, which he trusted might prove satisfactory.
  Besides the increase in the Home Charges of the British troops serving in India, the Petitioners alluded to many occasions in which the Army of India had been engaged out of India upon Imperial service, when, in their opinion, an undue portion of the expense was charged upon India. He (the Earl of Northbrook) was of opinion that India was charged with more than was equitable in the case of the Abyssinian War; and in the case of a small Force sent to Perak, in the neighbourhood of Singapore, a few years ago, he entertained, and had expressed, the same opinion. Moreover, he considered that Indian Revenues had been charged in that case contrary to law, and he had last year asked the Secretary of State (the Marquess of Salisbury) to explain why an Address was not moved to the Crown, which, under the Government of India Act, ought to have been done before such a charge was imposed upon India. The noble Marquess was unable to afford their Lordships any explanation of that omission. It was a small affair; but still it was important that the law should be observed. He would not allude further to it, more especially as he was glad to perceive that in the case of the Native Indian troops recently brought for service to Malta, a right principle had been adopted for the first time. The whole of the expense of the transport and the pay of those troops was to be charged on the Imperial Revenue.
  1144
  He would add that the recent despatch of Native troops to Malta had placed the question of the Home Charges of the Army employed in India on a different footing from that which it occupied before. When any portion of Her Majesty's Forces were sent out from this country to India, India paid for the whole cost of recruiting and training every man sent out—so much for an infantry soldier, so much for a gunner, and so on, besides their pay and maintenance from the moment they left England; while, on the other hand, if Indian forces were sent out of India on Imperial service, this country did not pay anything for the cost of recruiting or training them, and very seldom for the whole of their pay. A considerable portion of the charge for them fell upon India herself. As it was now recognized that Native Indian troops might be made available for service with the other troops of Her Majesty in portions of Her Majesty's Dominions other than India— he thought that constituted a good reason for placing the Home Charges for troops serving in India on a basis more equitable to India.
  The Petitioners considered that some reduction might be made in the strength of the Native Army of India. He (the Earl of Northbrook) had considered this subject most carefully while in India, and could not agree with the Petitioners that it would be desirable to reduce the Native Army; but of the two alternatives, he would prefer a smaller Army to an increased taxation. He remembered the opinion given by Lord Canning, that it was a question between imposing new and irritating taxes in India, and reducing the British Forces in India. "Danger for danger"—he believed those were Lord Canning's words—" I should prefer to reduce the Army; " and he (the Earl of Northbrook) very much sympathized with Lord Canning's views.
  The feelings expressed by the Petitioners on the subject of Military Expenditure was undoubtedly genuine and sincere; this was shown by the speech of Sir Ashley Eden, the present Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, in the Legislative Council of India, in December last, when the new taxes were proposed. Sir Ashley Eden said, that while the Natives of Bengal were prepared to bear loyally the additional taxation necessary to provide for the Famine Expenditure,

  1145
  it was his duty to inform the Government that a strong feeling was entertained by them that the Military Expenditure was susceptible of reduction, and that it should be reduced.
  The next head of Expenditure to which the Petitioners referred was "Public Works." They said— "The Public Works Department constitutes another fruitful source of expenditure." They considered that however valuable railways or irrigation works might be, the expenditure upon them was not always judicious, and ought to be carefully checked. It was remarkable that whenever the opinions of intelligent, educated, and thoughtful Natives of India were expressed, they were altogether at variance with the views advocated by Mr. Bright at certain public meetings last year— that the best thing for India would be that some £30,000,000 should be laid out at once upon irrigation. The Petitioners thought—and he (the Earl of Northbrook) entirely agreed with them— that public works were too dearly purchased, if they involved the imposition of increased burdens on the people.
  He (the Earl of Northbrook) was somewhat apprehensive, from the recent accounts published in India, that the Expenditure upon Public Works constructed with borrowed money was increasing more rapidly than was consistent with the condition of the finances. In 1876–7, the Expenditure upon such works was £3,809,284, and Sir William Muir, the Financial Member of the Council of the Viceroy, said, in his Budget Statement, that the Government intended, in consequence of the increased charge on the finances which resulted from the depreciation in the value of silver, still further to contract that Expenditure. But in 1877–8, the Expenditure was £4,877,000, and for 1878–9, it was estimated at £4,555,000. It was probable that this increase had been occasioned by the necessity of providing employment for the people during the Famine in the South of India; but he (the Earl of Northbrook) felt somewhat apprehensive of the intentions of the Government of India in that respect, more especially as he had read some speeches made in India, which indicated that some scheme for the construction of local works from borrowed money, the interest of which must come in one way or another out of taxes, had been under consideration.
  1146
  The Petitioners also quoted the opinion, which it seemed had been published in India, of Sir Andrew Clarke, an Engineer officer of distinction, who was selected by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) to superintend the Public Works in India, that there was a great redundancy in the Staff of Engineers in India. Sir Andrew Clarke was reported to have written—"Some special means should be adopted to induce or to force the retirement of at least 100 Engineers," and to have expressed an opinion against the Cooper's Hill College, which apparently had the effect of sending to India an excessive supply of young Civil Engineers, at an unnecessary cost to Indian Revenues. He (the Earl of Northbrook) had no recollection of having received any representations of that nature when he was in India; but he trusted that, considering the high authority of Sir Andrew Clarke, the Secretary of State would lay upon the Table any communications that might have been received from India upon the subject.
  While on the subject of Public Works, he wished to ask if there was any intention on the part of the Government to guarantee a railway across Asia Minor, either wholly or in part, from the Re-venues of India? That was a matter which had been very fully considered by the Government of India when the late Lord Mayo was Viceroy, and on the 2nd of June, 1871, the following opinion was expressed:—
  "Upon the whole, we desire to offer such, encouragement as may be possible to the project for the construction of a railway from either the Bosphorus or the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf; but we are decidedly averse to any promise of pecuniary assistance being made. "We cannot consider the project of such vital or paramount importance to the interests of India as would justify us in placing a charge upon the resources of the Empire for its construction or maintenance."
  That opinion was given by very high authorities: besides Lord Mayo, there was his (the Earl of Northbrook's) noble and gallant Friend on the cross Benches (Lord Napier of Magdala); Sir John Strachey, the present Finance Minister of India; Sir Richard Temple, the present Governor of Bombay; Sir James FitzJames Stephen; Sir Barrow Ellis, one of the Members of the Council of the Secretary of State for India; and Major General Sir Henry Norman, also a Mem-

  1147
  ber of that Council. He (the Earl of Northbrook) trusted that no step would be taken to saddle the Revenues of India with a guarantee of this description, with so strong an expression of opinion against it, without an opportunity being given for a discussion in Parliament.
  The Petitioners proceeded to express their opinion that some reductions might be made in the cost of the general Administration of India, and particularly by the increased employment of Natives of India. He (the Earl of Northbrook) could answer for it, that the desire of the Government of India for many years had been to employ Natives of India wherever their services could be made available to the advantage of the Public Service; and he was aware, from communications which he had received from Lord Lytton, that this was an object which he had much at heart, and that he hoped to be able to make arrangements for the employment of an additional number of Natives of India, which might also have the effect of producing some saving of Expenditure.
  The Petitioners made, in connection with this subject, some observations which were well deserving of consideration. They said—
  The Government of India has taken an important step by the new system of Provincial finance. It has, it is true, given considerable latitude to the local Governments in the administration of their own affairs; but its direct result to the people has been an immense increase of local burdens. Within the last seven years, in Bengal alone, there has been an increase of about £1,000,000, and for the whole of India more than £3,000,000 per annum by Provincial taxation. Whether the tax is imposed by the local Government or by the Supreme Government, the effect upon the taxpayers is the same; they are burdened with so much additional taxation. If the responsibilities of the local Governments are to be increased, it is but fair that the people subject to those Governments should be allowed some voice in the administration of the Provincial revenues, either in the shape of a Consultative Council or by the extension of the powers of the local Legislative Councils in financial matters, and by a larger admission of non-official Members, so as not to leave them in a standing minority."
  He (the Earl of Northbrook) knew that it was the opinion of many high authorities, and among them of his friend Sir William Muir, who was for many years Lieutenant Governor of the North-Western Provinces, that now that the responsibilities of the Lieutenant Governors of Provinces had been much
  1148
  increased, especially in regard to the disposal of the Provincial Revenues, it was very desirable to establish some kind of Council to assist them in their duties, and moreover to supply an element of stability to the policy of those Provinces, which was, under the present system, almost entirely under the control of the Lieutenant Governor for the time being. He (the Earl of Northbrook) was inclined to think that it might be well to strengthen the Provincial Governments by the establishment of some description of Councils; and he thought that if that were done, it would be desirable to appoint to such Councils Natives of India of high character—such, for example, as had filled the office of Members of the different Legislative Councils. Another suggestion had been made of a similar kind, that Native gentlemen who had filled high office under the Government should be formed into a kind of Privy Council, and should have the function, which they would consider as a high honour, of advising the Government, in some recognized capacity, upon matters of importance. He (the Earl of Northbrook) entertained a strong opinion of the advantage which was derived by the Government of India from taking into their counsels such Natives of India—and more especially in regard to taxation—when it was of the greatest importance to know the real feelings of the people.
  The Petition concluded in terms to which he asked the attention of their Lordships—
  "Your Lordships' Petitioners have been led to make this appeal to your Lordships, because heavy burdens have been lately imposed upon the people of India. The object which has led to the imposition of these burdens is, undoubtedly, humane, for it is intended to apply the additional funds to the relief and prevention of famine; but practically the object is to increase the general revenues of the country, particularly in view of extension of public "works. Your Lordships' Petitioners and the rest of their countrymen gratefully acknowledge the solicitude of the Government of India to save the lives of poor sufferers from the Famine, and are willing to bear what additional burdens they can for that benevolent purpose. But at the same time they cannot disguise the feeling, which is widely prevalent throughout India, that by making necessary, judicious, and vigorous retrenchments, without diminishing the strength or efficiency of the Administration, and by a fair and equitable adjustment of military charges payable by England and India respectively, a considerable saving may he effected—indeed, much more than the sums

  1149
  calculated from the new measures of taxation. And when this is made patent, your Lordships' Petitioners feel confident that your Lordships will not sanction the permanent imposition of the recent heavy taxation in India without first trying the much-needed and just alternative of retrenchment. This, your Lordships' Petitioners respectfully submit, is an essential point in providing for Famine Expenditure; for if £3,000,000 sterling a-year additional taxation beyond the amount in 1870–71 be taken from the people, not to mention the periodic increase of the land assessment and of other taxation, such as the proposed enhancement of the stamp duties, and municipal taxation, which also presses upon them severely, they must thereby be so impoverished that, in the event of future famines, there being less margin for private savings, there will necessarily be more strain upon public expenditure to meet the pressure of famine, though the general capacity of the people to cope with that strain will be reduced pro tanto. Your Lordships' Petitioners, therefore, pray that your Lordships' House, which has always been distinguished for its generous solicitude for the welfare of the people of India, will be pleased to inquire and consider as to how far the new requirements of India for famine relief may be met by the enforcement of economy, without recourse to additional taxation."
  The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), when Secretary of State for India, pointed out in one of his speeches that the distress and mortality caused by the recent famine arose, not from the want of a sufficient supply of food in India, nor from the want of means of communication—for food enough seems always to have been conveyed by means of the railways to the most distressed districts—but because the people were not well enough off to bear the strain of two successive bad years, and had nothing to depend on but the public works provided for them by the Government, and the charitable assistance which was contributed for their relief. The noble Marquess looked forward to the improvement of the condition of the people as the best security against the recurrence of such calamities. The Petitioners said that of the various suggestions made for the mitigation of famine sufferings, that made by the noble Marquess—namely, the observance of frugality by the people, was both sound and practical.
  "But (they added with truth) the people of India arc noted for thrifty and frugal habits, and for patience under suffering, and that if the poorer classes fall an easy prey to a widespread disaster like the famine, it is not because they are extravagant in times of prosperity, but because their means are very limited, and that the multiplication of burdens upon them must
  1150
  diminish the little room they have for the practice of that frugality upon which the Secretary of State justly lays stress."
  With regard to the anticipation of the Petitioners, that by a re-adjustment of the Military Charges, or by some other such economies as they had indicated, enough would be saved to equal the £1,500,000 which it was proposed to raise by additional taxation, he could not himself think it right to hold out any such expectation. Although he thought something might be done in the way of reduction of Expenditure—and he was satisfied that the Government of India were not neglectful of any opportunity that might occur for effecting reductions—he did not think it likely that the cost of the Government of India could be very considerably diminished. Whatever savings might be made in one direction would be met by the increasing demands for improvements of different kinds throughout India.
  But there was an aspect of the question which appeared to him to afford a more favourable prospect of the remission of taxation than the reductions of Expenditure recommended by the Petitioners. It appeared to him that some, at least, of the new taxes were not necessary, and ought not to be imposed.
  From the accounts of the Revenue and Expenditure of India for the last four or five years, they found that, exclusive of the money spent on Public Works Extraordinary, and that spent on account of Famine relief, there were surpluses of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 sterling in each of the years from 1873–4 up to 1876–7, when the surplus fell to about £1,000,000 sterling; and, according to the statement published by the Government of India, if there had been no Famine, there would have been a surplus of £2,750,000 for the year 1877–8. Accordingly, it would appear at first sight that there was no necessity for putting on additional taxation in order to obtain the surplus of £1,500,000 which the Government of India considered should be provided as an insurance against Expenditure on account of Famines, and £500,000 as an ordinary balance, or £2,000,000 in all. With the exception of 1876–7 more than the surplus required had been obtained in each of the last five years. The insurance against famine had been kept up. The whole cost, £6,500,000, of the

  1151
  Bengal Famine tad been paid out of surplus income in a few years. Unfortunately, however, that impression would not be correct. The depreciation in the value of silver made the cost of the remittances to England from India £1,500,000 more than it was a few years ago. Although, on the other hand, the guaranteed railways were paying so well that the sum which the Government had to pay on account of these undertakings had been very inconsiderable of late, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he admitted that a certain amount of increased taxation was necessary; and about a year ago new taxes were imposed, and certain other arrangements made, which improved the financial position by about £700,000.
  But in February of this year a licence tax was imposed, and a cess imposed upon land. There was additional taxation to the amount of £1,100,000 imposed in that month. The speeches made by the Viceroy, and by Members of the Government of India, in December last, had led him (the Earl of Northbrook) to believe at first that it was necessary to impose this additional taxation. But the discussion in December last took place before full information could have been in the possession of the Government of the financial results of the year 1877–8, or of the prospects of the coming year. The new taxes were voted before the Budget for the year was, or could have been, prepared; and when in March the usual Budget was produced, and the Estimates and Accounts were published, he was unable to find in them a justification for the imposition of £1,100,000 of additional taxation. The Budget of March provided for an estimated surplus for 1878–9 of £2,156,000. He was happy to say that the Indian Estimates had been framed with such care of late years, that any Government was perfectly safe in concluding that the Receipts would be in excess of the amounts at which they were estimated. This was shown by comparing the Estimates and Accounts of each year, from 1873–4 to 1877–8, inclusive. In 1873–4, the estimated surplus was £220,000, the actual surplus was more than £2,000,000. In 1874–5, the estimated surplus was £1,192,000, the actual surplus more than £2,500,000; in 1875–6, the estimated surplus was £500,000, the actual surplus £1,250,000; in 1876–7, the estimated
  1152
  surplus was £144,000, the actual surplus £1,000,000. In 1877–8, the estimated surplus was £1,803,300, and the most recent accounts showed that the actual surplus would probably be £2,750,000. These figures were, of course, exclusive of the Expenditure on Public Works Extraordinary and on Famine relief. He did not condemn the practice of under-estimating Receipts. The Government of India were perfectly right to be on the safe side; but with Estimates so carefully framed, it would, in his opinion, have been amply sufficient to have estimated for a surplus of £1,500,000 instead of for a surplus of £2,156,000. Unless some unforeseen disturbance of the finances occurred, there would have been every probability of realizing an actual surplus of £2,000,000 at the end of the year.
  His (the Earl of Northbrook's) opinion, that taxes had been unnecessarily imposed, was confirmed by the figures of the Budget itself. Besides the estimated surplus having been, in his opinion, in excess of the real requirements of the case, he found that Customs' duties had been taken off to the amount of £232,000; so that, upon the face of the Budget, it appeared to him that if no taxes had been taken off, some, at least, of the new taxes would have been unnecessary.
  But the news received that morning from Calcutta was that the salt tax had just been very considerably reduced in Bengal and the North-West. He could not, of course, state precisely what the financial effect of that measure would be; but he could state the calculation of his responsible Advisers of the financial effect which would have followed from a somewhat similar measure which was under his consideration in the year 1873. In that year, he was informed that to reduce the salt duty in Northern India to 2 rupees 4 annas, and in Bengal to 2 rupees 12 annas, being somewhat less than the reduction which, if the report was correct, had been made now, would involve a loss to the Revenue of £758,000.
  What was the meaning of the course adopted by the Indian Government? It was this—that the Government found that they had a greater surplus than they expected to have; and they had, therefore, in the middle of the financial year, made a considerable reduction in the duty on salt, The calculations they had made in

  1153
  December last were, in fact, too gloomy. They had supposed themselves to be in a worse financial position than that in which they really were, and, anticipating now a larger surplus than they had expected either in December or March, they resolved to remit other taxation, instead of to abstain from levying the new taxes they had put on. Now, those taxes were put on for an express purpose, and they were justified as having teen put on for that purpose only. Sir John Strachey, speaking on the 9th of February, 1878, said—
  "These new taxes are required for the sole purpose of giving us, year by year, a sufficient surplus of Income over Expenditure to meet Famine Charges."
  Again, the Preamble of the Bills which imposed the new taxation made that clear. It ran thus—
  "Whereas, in order to provide means for defraying the Public Expenditure from time to time incurred and to be incurred for the relief and prevention of Famine in British India, it is necessary to effect a permanent increase of the Revenue."
  And the proceeds of the taxes were to be applied to that purpose only.
  It appeared to him that in the face of that statement, the Government of India were bound, the moment they saw they had imposed new taxes which were not required, to have abstained from levying them, instead of using the surplus for the purpose of taking off old taxes.
  But it might be said that the taxes which were imposed it was advisable to impose, and that the taxes which were reduced it was advisable to remit. He did not think that anyone who was well acquainted with India would concur in that view. The new taxes were a licence tax, and an increase of the cesses on land. The licence tax was an unpopular impost, bearing as it did on the poorer portion of the commercial classes throughout India, while the increase of the cesses on land disturbed the settlement under which an occupier of land held his land for a certain term of years. Necessity could alone justify the imposition of such taxes, and they ought to be removed as soon as possible. He knew it was thought by many that it was very advisable to reduce the salt duty, and to get rid of the Customs' line. He did not wish to undervalue the importance of that measure, and he would
  1154
  gladly have gone further in that direction than he did when he was in India, had he been able to do so without imposing fresh taxes; but of all taxes, the salt duty weighed with least oppression upon the people of India, and created the least discontent, and such was the opinion expressed by Sir John Strachey on the 27th of December last. He said that—
  "Payment of the tax is distributed over the year by almost daily instalments, each of them infinitesimally small;"
  and that—
  "In the years 1859, 1860, and 1861, the salt duty was raised in Bengal by 12 annas a-maund, and in the Upper Provinces by one rupee a-maund, not only without occasioning discontent or reducing consumption, but the measures hardly even attracted attention."
  On the same occasion, Sir Ashley Eden, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, whose attention to the welfare of the people is well known, gave it as his deliberate opinion that a reduction of the salt tax in Bengal was not required. He called it—
  "A sacrifice of Revenue in concession to theory which would afford no real relief to the people."
  The changes made in the Customs' tariff might be desirable in themselves, especially the remission of the export duty upon sugar. But, in his opinion, however right it might be to make those reforms, they ought to have been postponed until they could have been effected without the imposition of new taxes.
  In India, it was unwise and unsafe to take off taxes to which the people were accustomed and to impose others. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) used wise words on this point, when examined a few years ago before a Committee of the other House of Parliament. He said—
  "The difference between England and India in matters of finance is this—that in England you can raise a large increase of taxation without in the least degree risking the security of your institutions; but you cannot do so in India."
  When he (the Earl of Northbrook) was in India, a Correspondence took place between the Government of India and the noble Marquess on the subject of certain reductions of Customs' duties. The Government of India expressed their opinion that it would be highly inexpedient to impose fresh taxes for the purpose of making those reductions, and the noble

  1155
  Marquess, both in writing to the Government of India, and in his place in that House, expressed his entire concurrence with that opinion, and said that the Customs' reform he wished to make "was not by any means intended to involve any increase of taxation." He (the Earl of Northbrook) had then expressed the satisfaction with which he had received that assurance from the noble Marquess. It was renewed last year in explicit terms by the Under Secretary of State in the other House of Parliament. But what had been done now? New taxes had been put on, and immediately afterwards Customs and other duties had been taken off, which, if they had been left alone, would have made some, at least, of the new taxes unnecessary.
  Their Lordships should bear in mind what was the opinion of men who had governed India in reference to the effect of imposing fresh taxation. He had had to consider the question in India with the advice and assistance of the best and ablest Indian Civil servants, and he had made himself acquainted with the opinions of his Predecessors. He found that, in a Paper which had been laid before Parliament and was in their Lordships' Library, Lord Mayo said, not long before his lamented death, that—
  "A feeling of discontent and dissatisfaction existed among every class, both European and Native, on account of the constant increase of taxation which had for years been going on."
  And Lord Mayo added that—
  "The continuance of that feeling was a political danger, the magnitude of which could hardly be over-estimated."
  Such was the opinion of Lord Mayo; and he (the Earl of Northbrook), after taking every pains he could to inquire for himself, and with the responsibility of the Government of India upon him, deliberately arrived at the same conclusion.
  In giving their Lordships his views on the subject of the taxes which had been imposed in India, he had acted with reluctance. Since he had returned from India, he had avoided troubling their Lordships often on matters connected with India. It had been his desire to give what little support he could to Her Majesty's Government upon Indian affairs, and it was especially his desire to interpose no difficulties in the way of the Government of India. At the same time, in a matter of such importance to
  1156
  the welfare of India, it was his duty to express his opinions and to point out the danger of imposing fresh taxes. He might have hesitated if he had thought there was no remedy; but as the remedy was clear, there was an additional reason why he should take that opportunity of expressing his views on the subject. He trusted that the reduction of the salt tax might be postponed, and that the Government of India might be able to remit some part, at least, of the new taxes which had been imposed. He would only add that the danger to the stability of British rule in India, from the imposition of unnecessary taxation and anything like extravagant administration of the finances, was far greater, in his opinion, than any likely to arise from the recent alteration of the position of Russia in Asia Minor. The noble Earl concluded by moving for Copy of any Correspondence between the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India in Council on the subject of the excess of supply of Civil Engineers for service in India.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I rise to speak on the subject at considerable disadvantage after the noble Earl who has had such long experience of India and Indian finance; yet I will endeavour, as well as I can, to go through the various topics to which he has called attention, and I think I shall, in the end, be able to show your Lordships that the indictment which he has framed against the taxation of India is not of the serious character he supposes, and that the changes which have been made are of such a nature that they will lay the foundation of a better fiscal system in India, and lead to the redress of those grievances to which he has called your Lordships' attention. This conversation, as your Lordships know, commenced with the remarks of the noble Earl upon the Petition presented from the British Indian Association. Now, I am far from undervaluing that Petition, or those by whom it is signed; yet I am not prepared to admit that it is anything like an accurate statement of the facts of the case. If my noble Friend will read the Petition carefully, he will observe some of the most extraordinary mistakes it is possible to conceive, especially in regard to the Home Charges as affecting the Army of India. For instance, a comparison is made of one item with another,

  1157
  taking no note of the fact that in the one case the figures included stores which, in themselves, represented £1,200,000. With regard to the question of Military Expenditure, to which my attention was drawn on going into the War Office, I found that my noble Friend who preceded me had got into a hot correspondence with the Secretary of State for India, and that things had practically come to a dead-lock. There being no possibility of a solution of the difficulty under existing conditions, I obtained the services of a gentleman whom your Lordships know to be well fitted for the work—Mr. Edward Bouverie — who became Chairman of the Committee that had been appointed by the two Departments, which, under his presidency, and after a complete investigation, came to a decision as to what the War Office ought to receive, and what the India Office ought to deduct. I can say, with the utmost confidence, that I have never taken any partizan view of this matter. I offered to refer all questions when I was in the War Office just as I do now that I am in the India Office. There was no desire on the part either of the War Office or the Treasury to treat India unfairly, or to lay any undue burdens upon her; but when the Petitioners complain of having now to pay differently than for the East Indian Army under the old system, it is my duty to point out that they entirely forget that instead of sending them out recruits, we now send them out the manufactured article. The Home Charges are charges which almost entirely affect India. It is quite true that we have the troops in England, and can make use of them in any great pressure or emergency; but they are being prepared for the Indian Army; and, therefore, India ought not to complain if this is charged in the expense. But I do not desire to waste time upon that point, which has practically been given up by the noble Earl; for he said he did not see how any great reduction could be made. When, however, I come to tell what has been arranged, your Lordships will see there is every prospect of things being put upon a sound footing. A dispute has been going on between the two Offices—the War Office and the India Office—for many years, in respect to the claims of one or the other; but that has been settled by the Imperial Government surrendering
  1158
  a claim to some £150,000, and in March next that whole matter will be ended. An arrangement is under consideration as to the sums to be paid in future; and it is proposed that that arrangement shall remain in force for a certain number of years, and will then be subject to revision. With regard to Abyssinia, I need not go into that matter, inasmuch as a different system as to the employment of troops out of India has recently been adopted, by which the whole of the charges are placed on the Imperial Government. There may, of course, be cases in which a different state of affairs may arise; and, therefore, we cannot lay down any hard-and-fast line on this subject. Now, my noble Friend (the Earl of North-brook) has expressed his opinion that a further reduction of the Army in India is not desirable. Certainly, after the pains taken some years ago on this question, it is impossible to approach it with a view to anything like a great reduction. We might make reductions here and there; but I think my noble Friend was right in not holding out any hopes to the Petitioners of making any such reduction as would meet the views they have expressed. Now, with regard to public works, I do not think that too great caution can be exercised. There is a notion afloat that you cannot spend too much upon public works, or make too many of them to benefit India; but there was never a greater delusion. Works may fail to be of any utility to a locality, and therefore it is of the utmost importance that the greatest care should be taken in the selection of localities. It is possible that works may exceed in cost the advantage to be derived from them; and then they became a burden instead of a benefit. Such works, I am sorry to say, exist already. On the other hand, irrigation works and railways should be introduced wherever it is reasonably probable that the benefit they will confer will be proportionate to the outlay involved. Indeed, it is essential that they should be undertaken. Railways are especially valuable if they are well laid out, and with a due regard to the needs of the people. In the late Famine, the railways did more than anything else to save life; for it enabled the authorities to transport enormous masses of food, estimated at millions of tons, which otherwise could not have been carried to

  1159
  the starving people. We do not know how much more awful the calamity would have been without the railways. Now, as to what the noble Earl has said in reference to Sir Andrew Clarke, the head of the Public Works, I think that what he desires is that we should not send out in great numbers from Cooper's Hill engineers who are not perfectly educated in their profession, that we should keep them back until they are more completely educated, for fear that there should not be employment for those of only moderate attainments. That recommendation was attended to by my noble Predecessor in Office, who, while unable to prevent students from going out in accordance with the terms of their engagements, had persuaded one-half of those who might have done so to remain in this country, and to study engineering works practically in order that they might be better fitted for their duties in India when they did go out. As to the railways in Asia Minor, about which the noble Earl has asked me, no application has yet been made to the English Government for guarantees; and if there had been, I should certainly consult the Government of India before taking any responsibility upon myself. In a great question of this sort, I will not commit myself further than to say that both the Government and the country will have full time to consider the matter before anything could be done to impose a tax on the Revenues of India. In regard to the general administration of India, it is very desirable on many grounds—but, above all, because pledges have been given both by Acts of Parliament, and Proclamation—that Natives should be employed in Government work; it is essential that we should redeem our obligations; but, at the same time, we must take care that they are placed in positions in which they cannot come into collision with the legitimate claims of the Indian Civil Service. Means ought to be taken to provide for the employment of Natives, not in the lower places which they might enter by competition, but also in the higher places which they might obtain by selection on the score of special fitness. If Natives were to be admitted to the Councils of a Lieutenant Governor—on which I do not express an opinion—that official, no doubt, would have the selection of Native members; and, of course, would choose men
  1160
  qualified to assist him. I now come to what is the pith of my noble Friend's speech—the question of taxation. There is one thing absolutely clear, from the speeches of Sir John Strachey and others in the Legislative Council, and that is that throughout all these proceedings the chief object has been to equalize the salt duties, to abolish the barbarous system of Customs' lines, to reduce the transit dues, and further to enter into engagements with the Governments of States producing salt, in order that we may practically obtain control of the salt made in India. The noble Earl expressed himself anxious for the equalization and the lowering of the salt duties, and says that if he had had a surplus he would have used it to accomplish those objects. But, as a matter of fact, he had, according to his statement, a surplus for four years, and it is curious he did not do it. Why, even with that surplus, he looked forward to the necessity for additional taxation, in order to meet these constantly recurring Famines, which were becoming ordinary instead of extraordinary. In five years, the extraordinary expenditure on Famines has amounted to £16,000,000, and the surplus of which he speaks was swallowed up. He did not advert to the fact that the income tax has been abolished; and therefore it has become necessary to have recourse to the new taxes, which are now objected to. It is impossible, or, at least, unwise at present, to revive the income tax; had it been kept partially alive, it might have sufficed or have been raised, and these new taxes would not have had to be imposed. But as it is, is it unreasonable to impose a new tax for the purpose of effecting fiscal reforms, when those fiscal reforms will furnish the means of meeting the expenses of constantly recurring Famines? The noble Earl did not rely upon the surplus to meet the Famine Expenditure; he thought it necessary to provide another fund for the purpose; and this, let me point out, is exactly what is being done by Sir John Strachey. He has been endeavouring to accomplish that which four successive Governments have been attempting to do — namely, to enter into arrangements with the States that produce salt, so as to get the entire trade into our hands, and thus, for one thing, to put an end to smuggling. In the other House, an ex-Minister and

  1161
  eminent authority as a chemist declared that in India vitality cannot be kept up without a certain quantity of salt; a Native without his salt was not, if I may use the expression, worth his salt. Well, what has been the effect already of getting rid of the transit dues? The price, exclusive of duty, has in a part of India been reduced from three rupees to less than 1 rupee per maund. It is very desirable that there should be an uniform salt tax throughout India; it would now be throughout a very large portion 2 rupees 8 annas, or about ¾d. a-pound, which cannot press hardly upon the Natives. I might, in explaining the needs of India, call attention to the depreciation of silver, which exercises so injurious an effect on the finance of India at the present moment. This, I fear, is not to be cured by legislation, but depends upon ordinary rules of political economy. I now come to the question of the licence and cess taxes; and Sir John Strachey defended them upon a principle which has recently been maintained with great urgency in your Lordships' House—namely, that when dealing with the poorer classes we should endeavour to make them thrifty and look after themselves as far as possible. He said that it was upon the agriculturists and small traders that the great weight of the Famines fell; and that, therefore, it is not an unreasonable thing that they should pay towards this fund which is to provide against future Famines. The licence tax falls upon the trader, but it is small, and it is perfectly absurd to compare the small trader in India with a similar man in England; while the cess tax is a tax on rentals, and on proprietors, and if you look at the burdens laid upon these Provinces in former times, you will find that a less amount is now demanded than was taken then, because, instead of taking one-half, you take only one-third now; and it is a tax not on the rent payer, but upon the man who receives the rent, and it is so small that it will not press upon the occupant. You may find that sometimes it will reach the occupant; but, as a rule, I think it is of so small an amount that it will not affect the proprietor to such an extent as to make him look for someone to bear the amount on his behalf. I agree with my noble Friend that new taxes, whether at home or in India, are very undesirable, and nobody
  1162
  can be more strongly of opinion than Lord Lytton and Sir John Strachey that Taxation and Expenditure must be reduced as far as possible, but that you must make both ends meet; but when they have to deal with exceptional circumstances, such as Famines, which seem to prey like wild beasts on different parts of India, it then becomes necessary to look for some resource which shall be permanently available. With that view, Sir John Strachey has endeavoured to obtain £2,000,000 above his Expenditure—that is, £500,000 over as surplus, and £1,500,000 to be invested in reproductive works, so as to enable him, when Famine comes, to borrow money on the interest arising from the investment so made. I hope to Heaven these Famines may pass away; but we have had them constantly since 1874, and nothing can be more distressing than to read the accounts of them, while, on the other hand, nothing can be more heroic than the way in which the Civil servants in India, for the most part, have acted in dealing with them. If by so small a taxation as this you can provide remunerative Public Works, which may tend to bring to an end these disastrous Famines, you will have achieved a work which will be an honour to Sir John Strachey, who introduced it and to this country, for having sanctioned it.
  LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALAconsidered the Armies of India reduced to the lowest standard consistent with safety. A few thousand men, such as the Force sent to Abyssinia, or that recently sent to Malta, might be temporarily employed out of the country for Imperial purposes, or employed to maintain order on the North-West Frontier; but the country could not safely bear any permanent reduction of the Army. With regard to the Public Works, he observed, that nothing was so expensive and wasteful as a fluctuating condition of those Works. At times there had been most urgent and pressing demands for the extension of the Public Works. Then, when a fit of economy seized the Government, there had been sudden reductions; but the Establishments could not be suddenly reduced without great sacrifices, and remained a burthen on the Public Works, increasing their cost enormously. With regard to the railways, he considered that no new works

  1163
  of magnitude should be commenced until the great military arteries—the lines of railway from the sea at Bombay by the Indus Valley to Lahore, and. the continuation of the military line, from Calcutta to Peshawur through Lahore, had been completed. The progress of the Lahore and Peshawur portion had been most dilatory. Regarding the Councils for the Lieutenant Governors of Provinces, he considered that it would be a very beneficial measure to give them, and to appoint to them Natives of approved ability and loyalty; but as Councils were very expensive bodies, involving large salaries, he trusted that their cost would be met by reductions in the Civil Establishments.
  Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  Then—

INDIA (CIVIL ENGINEERS).

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of any correspondence between the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India in Council on the subject of the excess of supply of civil engineers for service in India.—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  Motion agreed to.

  TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL.
  (The Earl of Longford.)

  (NO. 156.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said: My Lords, this Bill has come up from the House of Commons. It was not the subject of much public discussion there, but was very closely scrutinised in private conference by the Representatives of both the interests concerned, who arrived at a common agreement. It was not opposed by the Government, and I hope that here it may find favour with your Lordships. The Bill does not open a general review of the Irish Land Act, it refers to a special class of cases only, it has but one operative clause, and its purpose is to set at rest doubts leading to litigation and dispute in certain cases not definitely provided for by that Act. It seems to have been assumed, during the discussions upon the Irish Land
  1164
  Act, that the Ulster tenant-right custom would attach only to yearly tenancies; but it has been found in practice that tenants, at the expiration of leases, or who hold under lease, have considered themselves in the same position, and entitled to make the same claim to the benefit of the custom, as yearly tenants; in short, the present doubt is, whether the lease overrides the custom, or whether, as the tenants now claim, the custom overrides the lease, in cases where a yearly tenant would have been entitled thereto. The promoters of this Bill, who are landlords, or representatives of landlords, of considerable estates in different counties in Ulster, are of opinion that the claim of the tenants is right, in an equitable view of the 1st clause of the Land Act; and by this Bill they propose to complete what the Land Act has left in doubt, and to declare that where the custom is legalized at the expiration of a yearly tenancy, and in those cases only, it shall be legalized at the expiration of a lease. It is, no doubt, open to tenants to go into Court and establish their claims if they can; but the promoters of this Bill wish to avoid a period of possibly vexatious litigation, and they are ready to bind themselves and others to admit such claims in the cases specified in the Bill. The Bill has been placed in my hands as being unconnected with the district; but I have the general interest shared by all your Lordships in the welfare of the agricultural community in Ireland, and as this Bill has been accepted by what I may call a joint committee of landlords and tenants before it reached your Lordships' House, I think that it may pass here, as it passed there. I am aware that some noble Lords have viewed this measure with suspicion, either under the apprehension that further and objectionable legislation may be founded upon it, or because the landlord's rights may not be sufficiently protected. To the first I would point out that the Bill is of so special and limited an application that it can scarcely be extended to cover other ground, and to meet the views of those who think that the power should be reserved to owners to disprove a claim that may not be well founded. I am quite willing, on the part of the promoters, to introduce an Amendment to secure their position— the Amendment did form part of a for-

  1165
  mer Bill promoted by the same parties for the same purpose. ["Head!"] A noble Lord who was inclined to object to this Bill has been good enough to communicate with me, and to express himself satisfied; and with this modification, I hope that opposition will not be pressed against a measure that is regarded with some anxiety by those interested.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Longford.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that he had given Notice to move the rejection of the Bill; but, after consultation with his noble Friend, he had come to the conclusion that, as far as he was concerned, the Amendment would remove any necessity there previously existed for his moving the rejection of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDdescribed the Bill as an extraordinary one, and said, that no one had asked for it, and when it was supposed that it had been dropped in that House there was a regular pæan of exultation by the tenant-right party in the North of Ireland. The question involved in the Bill was a vital one for their Lordships' consideration; it was nothing more or less than this—whether what was laid down by Lord Mansfield as a fundamental principle of Common Law— namely, that no custom was to override a covenant should be reversed by Act of Parliament? It had been stated that it was doubtful whether the Land Act settled the question, and the late Lord Chief Justice Monahan actually decided that Parliament had made a great breach in the law, and that custom was to override covenant. The majority of the Judges—and certainly the late Lord Chief Justice Whiteside—said such an evasion of Common Law had never been made before, and now it was proposed to set the matter at rest by another Act of Parliament. "What was the present condition of Ulster tenant-right? Within the last few days there had been a sale of tenant-right in the county from which this Bill had arisen. The tenant-right of 21 acres and 28 perches, held at the annual rent of £23 6s. 6d., was bought for £750, or at the rate of £36 per acre. Forty years' purchase had been charged against the late Lord Leitrim; and,
  1166
  although it had been proved there had been false swearing in the matter, yet Lord Leitrim's property was saddled to that amount. He would just read to the House a judgment by one of the County Court Judges, which had been reported in the newspapers within the last month. The Judge said—
  "He would value very differently the land of small proprietors, like the person in that case, to what he would do the land of a person who had 1,000 acres. The large proprietor could afford to let his land at a moderate rent, while a man who had only 14 acres was anxious to make as much as possible out of it. Therefore, it would not he fair to give the same amount against the small owner which was given against the owner of thousands of acres; if he did, it would amount to a confiscation of his property."
  Now, according to that judgment, there was one law for the rich, and another for the poor. He was glad to say the tendency was in favour of the poor; but still he might fairly ask their Lordships whether they would give this power to the Judges, to deal with, and determine, leases in that manner—leases which, perhaps, like most Irish leases, were let at very low rates, on condition that certain works were executed? Or, in other words, the question was—whether they would allow one Irishman to rob another; or whether they would vindicate Lord Mansfield's principle that no custom was to override a covenant? He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months.")—(The Viscount Lifford.)
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKwould like to give some of his reasons for voting for the Amendment just moved by his noble Friend. In the first place, the Bill was very deceptive in its drawing. It had been described as a very small matter; but a careful examination of its provisions would show that it went a great deal farther than might be inferred from the speech of his noble Friend who had moved the second reading (the Earl of Longford). The Preamble said the Bill was to remove doubts as to the legal effect of certain leases in the Province of Ulster; but as it was drawn, the Bill not only affected Ulster, but the whole of Ireland; and, in his opinion, the Bill was unnecessary,

  1167
  for the question had not been overlooked when the Land Act was passed. The Bill, as it stood, simply provided that wherever there was any usage included in the Ulster, or analogous customs, such usage might be brought forward at the termination of the lease, unless this was prevented by the lease itself. In fact, the Bill created a custom, but in no way explained the original Act, or removed the doubts relating to it. "Where, on any estate the custom held good, even at the termination of a lease, that special usage might, and ought, to be proved under the original Act, like any other usage comprised in the Ulster tenant-right custom, and without such proof by the tenant, the landlord should not be compelled by a new Act to give the benefit of the custom to a tenant who might, perhaps, merely have purchased the remainder of a lease. Under the Bill, a partial custom would be made a general custom, affecting all holdings in Ireland on which there were any usages analogous to the Ulster tenant-right custom, and anyone acquiring the remainder of a lease would, at the same time, acquire the right. That would certainly increase the hardship with which the Land Act pressed upon the landlord. The Amendment which his noble Friend was ready to accept provided that a landlord might go into Court and prove that a property was not subject to this custom; but why should the onus of proof be thrown on the landlord? The Bill, to his mind, was not a measure of justice. So far as he knew, there had not been any strong agitation in Ireland in favour of the Bill; and he did not think the proposed change would satisfy the tenant-righters, or place the landlords on a safe footing for the future. He felt constrained, therefore, to vote against the second reading.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Although this is a Bill which the Government, as a Government, neither promote nor oppose, I should like to say a few words upon it, seeing that considerable interest is always felt in legislation on this subject. I cannot help feeling that it would not be right to judge of the merits or demerits of the measure with reference to the considerations put forward by the noble Viscount who sits on the cross Benches (Viscount Lifford). The noble Viscount found fault with a
  1168
  decision which had been come to by the tribunals in Ulster, but that can have no bearing upon the merits of the present Bill. No doubt these sales of tenant-rights in Ulster surprise us all; but this Bill will not make the sums larger or smaller. I agree that there are some words in the 2nd clause which might have been carried further. The clauses in the original Act which spoke of customs other than the Ulster, always appeared to me to be of the vaguest description, and I think this Bill, should it meet with the approbation of the House, ought to be limited to the Ulster tenant-right, and ought not to extend to any indefinite custom which may be included in the words "usages analogous thereto." Now, as regards Ulster, this Bill is certainly one which is recommended by those who have the largest possible stake in the property in the province, and, as I understand, it is supported by all the Members from Ulster in the other House. It appears doubtful to me whether the 2nd clause carries the enactment further than does the present law; whatever may be thought of the Act of 1870, there it stands. That Act did not exclude leases. It is as general as it can be, and declares that wherever the Ulster custom exists, there it shall be legal. According to the present law, a tenant might come forward and say—"I have got this holding; the lease has expired; but it has been the custom on this property to allow tenant-right at the expiration of a lease." In fact, this is very common in Ulster, and your Lordships will find, from the Report of Lord Devon's Committee, that even at that time it was well-known that tenant-right in Ulster was allowed at the expiration of a lease. That being so, the Act of 1870 says it shall be legal. Doubts, however, have arisen, and I believe the matter has not been finally decided. Your Lordships should observe that this Bill does not propose to throw upon the landlord a burden of proof which is not thrown upon him in any other case. In the first place, the tenant would have to prove that the custom prevailed on the property; but if the Amendment before us were agreed to, the landlord would be able to show, as a defence against the claim of the tenant, that although on the estate generally the Ulster tenant custom prevails, yet there was an ex-

  1169
  ception to the rule in that part of the estate where this particular holding was situated. Now, when, that is the fact, the landlord can easily prove it, because it must appear on the records of the property. The question is, whether this measure, which is promoted by those interested in the matter in Ulster, is fair in its provisions, or whether it unduly stretches the legislation of 1870? In my opinion, it would be a matter of regret if the Bill does not pass, especially considering the qualifications which have been inserted.
  LORD CARLINGFORDremarked, that originally there seemed to have been a pretty quarrel in regard to the Bill between noble Lords on the other side of the House; but afterwards it seemed as if a "compromise had broken out" on the subject. It now appeared, however, that this was not the case, and that the House would have to go to a division on the Bill. He was not frightened at the speech in which the rejection of the Bill had been moved; because his noble Friend's statements, even if they were well founded, had nothing to do with the merits of the measure. Much misconception prevailed as to the alarming sums sometimes given for tenant-right in the province of Ulster, especially that part of it with which the noble Viscount himself was connected. No doubt, owing to great competition, the tenant-right did run up to extravagant sums; but the figures were generally very misleading, because one important fact was not taken into account. To estimate the real value of the holding they must take, not only the rent, but the value of the holding, and the buildings upon it at the time. The only way to judge of the extravagance, or otherwise, of a price paid for tenant-right was first to inquire what was the condition of the holding, whether it had been reclaimed and made valuable from the mountain-side or the bog, and what buildings had been put upon it by the industry of the tenant? One of the principles of the Land Act was that the value put into and upon a holding by the tenant should be his property, and not that of the landlord. He was prepared to vote for the second reading for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord on the subject. He had no fear that injustice would be done to the landlord by it; his only doubt was
  1170
  whether the Bill was at all necessary. Their Lordships must bear in mind that the words of the Land Act did not exclude a holding upon which a lease existed, and it would be strange if they did. The framers of the Bill satisfied themselves that under the general and ordinary rule prevailing in the province of Ulster, the existence or non-existence of a lease made no difference. That was made clear by the famous Devon Commission, and was conformed by inquiries that were made before the Land Bill was drawn. The present Bill simply laid it down that the presumption should be in favour of the tenant, if he could show that the custom applied to his holding, and that in the expiring lease there was no express stipulation against it. That presumption, however, might, of course, be set aside by evidence on the part of the landlord that a variety of the custom that existed on his estate was different to that which obtained in Ulster generally. He could not take upon himself to oppose the second reading of a Bill which might bring increased peace and security to Ulster tenants without inflicting injustice on Ulster landlords.
  LORD O'HAGANintended to vote for the Bill, though without any admiration of it. He quite agreed with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the Bill simply affirmed what was the clear law of the land. His only objection to the Bill was that it was unnecessary. He did not think that a great and important Statute, which worked almost a revolution in society, should be decided upon without full and careful consideration; but, on the other hand, if the Bill were to be rejected, it might tend to create a doubt as to what the law really was. So far as the landed proprietors were concerned, there was evidence of the strongest character that they desired it; in fact, as he understood it, there was no opposition whatever. The Bill was the outcome of a conference of landlords and tenants in which they mutually agreed as to what was for the benefit of their respective interests, and for that reason, then, he felt that he ought to vote for the Bill.
  THE EARL OF ANNESLEYremarked that a great injustice would have been inflicted under the Bill had his noble Friend not consented to introduce the Amendment to which he had referred.
  On question that ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 8; Not-Contents 25: Majority 17.
  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day three months.

  CONTENTS.

  Cairns, (L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Carlingford, L.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  O'Hagan, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.) [Teller.]

  Belper, L.

  Waveney, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Manchester, D.

  Crofton, L.

  de Ros, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.) [Teller.]

  Devon, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.

  Hampton, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Monson, L.

  Northwick, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Norton, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Seaton, L.

  Lifford, V. [Teller.]

  Templemore, L.

  Melville, V.

  Ventry, L.

  DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 168.)
  (The Lord Carlingford)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, the Bill made considerable alteration in an Act which had been in operation for 15 years, and different authorities were, in some cases, substituted for those who had hitherto been found to work well.
  LORD CARLINGFORDreplied that the Bill had been introduced with the universal consent of all those who had had any experience in regard to the drainage of land in Ireland.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported, without Amendment, to be read 3a on Friday next.
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.