Sitting of 8 August 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED — For the County of Argyll, v. the Bight hon. John Douglas Campbell, commonly called Marquess of Lorne, Chiltern Hundreds.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES—CIVIL SERVICES, Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES or PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS; Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
Resolutions [July 15, August 5, August 7] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee— Consolidated Fund (£21,556,807 7s. 5d.).
NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1876–7—considered in Committee.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Christchurch, Newgate Street, London, Tithes Commutation, Consideration put off.
PUBLIC BILLS—Leave—Ordered—Expiring Laws Continuance.
Second Reading—Exchequer Bills and Bonds (No. 2) * [295].
Committee—Report—Petty Sessions Clerks and Fines (Ireland) [253].
Considered as amended—Statute Law Revision * [263].
Third Reading—Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [215], [House counted out].
Withdrawn — Collection of Rates (Dublin) * [220]; Municipal Corporations Acts * [238].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  CHRISTCHURCH, NEWGATE STREET, LONDON, TITHES COMMUTATION BILL— [Lords.]—(by Order.)

    CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Sir Sydney Waterlow.)
    MR. T. CAVEsaid, the House was good enough to allow him yesterday to explain why he took the liberty of opposing this Bill in its present stage, and of objecting to its being read a third time. He would, therefore, not trespass on the time of the House by making any further reference to the facts of the case, except to explain why it was he was anxious the Bill should not be allowed to proceed. He was a Member of the Select Committee which considered the Bill upstairs. He knew nothing of the facts of the case whatever until he went into the Committee. The Committee were equally divided, both in reference to the Preamble of the Bill, and in regard to each of the important clauses, and both the Preamble and the clauses were carried by the casting vote of the Chairman. In order to make himself understood, it was necessary that he should explain, in a very few words, that it was by a Statute passed in 1545, that St. Bartholomew's Hospital became the lay impropriators of Christ Church, Newgate Street, and that, under that Statute, they have the right to demand tithes at the rate of 2s. 9d. in the pound. In consideration, however, or in part consideration of these tithes, St. Bartholomew's Hospital was bound to keep in repair the parish church.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
    The House went; — and being returned;—
    MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.
    Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
    MR. T. CAVEsaid, that when the Speaker was called to the other House, he was just remarking that, by a Statute of 1545, St. Bartholomew's Hospital had authority to levy tithes at the rate of 2s. 9d. in the pound; and they were bound, in part consideration of the receipt of these tithes, to keep in repair the parish church. They did repair the parish church until the time of the Great Fire of London; but ever since that fire, they had ceased to repair it. He believed that his hon. Friend the junior Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) would tell the House that, in
    1504
    his opinion, they were only bound to repair the chancel, and not the church, and that they had repaired the chancel from that time to the present. In 1872, St. Bartholomew's Hospital raised a claim to levy this sum of 2s. 9d. in the pound, although they had accepted an equivalent of 1⅛d. for about two centuries. The parish of Christchurch resisted this claim, and they did so on the following grounds:—First, because they considered the payment of £200 a-year, which they had made for two centuries, as a customary payment; secondly, because the 2s. 9d. leviable on yearly rents was imposed when the rents were principally ground rents, and a sum of money was paid in the shape of a fine for the renewal of the lease, the fines being greater in amount than the rents themselves. Among the resisting petitioners —and he begged particularly the attention of the House to this fact—among the petitioners who resisted the litigation of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, were the firm of Messrs. Tylor, the brass-founders of Newgate Street, and, in addition, the trustees of Christ's Hospital. Messrs. Tylor were all powerful people in the parish of Christchurch. They were greatly trusted by their fellow-parishioners. They permitted themselves to come to the front in respect of this litigation, and, acting in conjunction with Christ's Hospital, the parishioners trusted them, and believed they would not feel at liberty to accept any compromise on their own account without the consent of the parishioners generally, and those who were joined with them in paying the costs of the litigation. The facts of the case, however, as it appeared to him, did not justify that confidence. St. Bartholomew's Hospital, having perhaps reason to fear the strength and force of the resistance offered to them by a firm like Messrs. Tylor, and a powerful corporate body like Christ's Hospital, made attempts to "square," and did, in fact, "square" those representative bodies, as he would venture to call them. They "squared" them in this way—They told the petitioners that they had the right to claim from them the rate of 2s. 9d. in the pound, but that they were ready to enter into a compromise for the payment of 6d. in the pound at once, the sum gradually rising to about 1s. at the end of 10 years. That was the arrangement

    1505
    which was to be made as a compromise. But how did the House think St. Bartholomew's Hospital settled with Messrs. Tylor? Messrs. Tylor were a strong and powerful firm, and were not easily to be set aside. St. Bartholomew's Hospital, therefore, found it convenient to settle with Messrs. Tylor for the payment of 6d. in the pound for ever. With Christ's Hospital, they entered into a compromise still more extraordinary and still more immoral. The House would find, if they referred to the Bill, that there was a clause inserted in it—Clause 13—which put outside the parish limits all ground which might become afterwards chargeable with these rates. This was done by a process scarcely honest. He dared say his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone would put another construction on the matter; but it certainly did seem to him (Mr. T. Cave) to be a transaction which he could designate by no other name than dishonest. They agreed to regard land and buildings as being outside the parish, when, in point of fact, they were within it, and. to let off a powerful and wealthy Corporation like Christ's Hospital with the small additional payment of £100 a-year. Now, it had long been known that it had been in the contemplation of Christ's Hospital to take the boys now under their charge in Newgate Street into the country, and to convert the large space of ground belonging to them, in the parish of Christchurch, into building ground, from which they would receive a very large and important rent-roll. The result of this transaction would be that any tradesmen taking shops belonging to Christ's Hospital would have an immense advantage over all other tradesmen in the neighbourhood who happened to live outside the limits of Christ's Hospital. Such tradesmen would be handicapped against the tradesmen who lived on premises which belonged to Christ's Hospital. The opposing petitioners found themselves to be sold by these two compromises. At the same time, they considered that it would be impossible to continue the litigation further, without the assistance of these two powerful parties, and they agreed to come to a compromise with St. Bartholomew's Hospital on their own account. They were afraid that if they did not effect a compromise, they would be held liable for the payment of the full rate of
    1506
    2s. 9d. in the pound, and, as a matter of fact, a compromise was settled between a large number of parishioners—but not those who were now opposing the further progress of this Bill—and St. Bartholomew's Hospital, the terms of the compromise being that the parish should pay a rate immediately which would realize £1,100 a-year, that this sum should be gradually increased to £1,600, or nearly 500 per cent at the end of five years, and ultimately to £2,200 a-year at the end of a further period of five years, at which sum it was to remain in perpetuity. This compromise was submitted to the Master of the Rolls, who made some very significant remarks when it came before him. He did not disguise his anger and contempt—for that, practically, was the interpretation to be put upon the statements made by the Master of the Rolls—he did not disguise his feeling in regard to the great injustice of a great Corporation seeking, after the lapse of two centuries, to tax, for their own purposes, upon so enormously increased a scale, the whole of the parish which, unfortunately, was placed at their mercy. Perhaps, he (Mr. T. Cave) might be allowed to read one remark which was made by the Master of the Rolls. The learned Judge said, in fact—"What things are done in the name of charity!" and then went on to say that unless St. Bartholomew's Hospital accepted a reasonable compromise, he thought legislation would be necessary in order to protect the parishioners from the consequences. In regard to the Bill which was at present before the House, it had been introduced into Parliament in order to give legality to this compromise. He was a Member of the Select Committee which sat upon the Bill upstairs. The Committee listened with full attention to all the statements that were laid before them, and, after hearing the case, the Committee-room was cleared, in order that the question might be discussed between the Members of the Committee as to whether or not the Preamble of the Bill should be passed. In the end, it was only passed, after strenuous opposition of one-half of the Members of the Committee, by the casting vote of the Chairman. In the same way the important clauses of the Bill were passed, each clause being carried by the casting vote of the Chairman. The Chairman himself frequently

    1507
    used the argument which had been employed by counsel, that if the Committee did not pass the Bill in the shape in which it was asked for, the promoters would not take it all, but would go on with their litigation. This argument was urged upon the Committee by the Chairman, and he believed that it had considerable weight and influence with his hon. Colleagues, who permitted the Bill to pass. He was now going to ask the House to refuse to permit the Bill to take a stage to-day, simply on the following grounds:—First, he wanted to give to the dissentent petitioners a little longer time to consider the compromise —namely, until next Session. He believed that if an interval of this kind took place, the parties interested would be able to arrive at a fairer compromise than that which was contained in the present measure, and he made the Motion, which he had placed upon the Paper, in order to afford them an opportunity of doing so. St. Bartholomew's Hospital had agreed to settle with Messrs. Tylor at the rate of 6d. in the pound. If they would settle with all the parishioners on the same terms, he should not have a word to say. Surely they ought to be treated all alike? Surely a wealthy man ought not to be let off with 6d., while others, who were not in an equally favourable position, were required to pay 1s. He believed that a compromise on these terms would entitle St. Bartholomew's Hospital to about £800 a-year, and the petitioners who opposed the Bill were quite willing to accept a compromise for the payment of £800 a-year. If that were done, the House would not be further troubled on the matter. He had been told that the arrangement made with Messrs. Tylor had been broken off, and that Messrs. Tylor were willing to come into the same arrangement as the rest of the parishioners. He believed that that was not true, and his reason for believing so was derived from certain statements which had been drawn up and placed in his hands; but which, unfortunately, he was not at liberty to use on the present occasion. He might add that such a proposal had never been made in that House before, as to give the force of legality to an attempt to raise a rate, after a lapse of two centuries, which amounted to 10, 20, and 30 times the amount of the original rate, and this
    1508
    without the slightest notice to the parishioners. The House would see that the owners of real property, having this claim forced upon them, would find the value of their property depreciated by 10, 15, or 20 per cent. If such a thing were to occur in regard to the actual value of a large landed estate, he ventured to say that the House would hear a great deal about it. When the Bill was last before the House, the Chairman of Ways and Means told the House that he found it his duty to vote for the Bill; but he made it tolerably clear that he did not approve of it. There was another reason why he (Mr. T. Cave) asked the House to refuse the Bill, and it was that there was no recorded instance of an Act being passed, after a fixed payment had been made for more than 200 years, which multiplied that payment, by a compromise, to 10 times the sum originally levied. He could not believe that the House would consent to sanction such a compromise. An arrangement of this nature did appear to him to he most unfair, and he could not help thinking that the treatment of the parishioners of this parish under the Bill was most unworthy of a great Corporation like St. Bartholomew's Hospital. He begged to move that the Bill, as amended, be taken into consideration that day three months, and he might add that he should trouble the House to divide upon the Motion.
    MR. PLIMSOLLseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Thomas Cave.)
    Question proposed, "That the word ' now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GREGORYremarked, that before expressing his views in regard to the Bill, he was anxious to state that he had no interest whatever in the measure, and had nothing whatever to do with the property that would be affected by the Bill. His only object in rising was to put the case as fairly as he could for the consideration of the Bill by the House. It appeared to him that the case itself was a very short and simple one. He did not at all question the accuracy of the details which had been entered into by the hon. Member for

    1509
    Barnstaple, because he knew nothing of the circumstances that were laid before the Committee upstairs. He dared say that they would be explained by hon. Members who were Members of the Committee. What he wished to speak upon was the general ground, and the general principles of the Bill, and he would ask the House to consider what would be the result if they rejected it. Now, he thought that anyone who referred to the statement of the case before the Master of the Rolls must be satisfied that he would have decided against the parishioners who were sued for the recovery of those tithes, provided the case had gone on to its conclusion. He told the plaintiffs that that would have been his course in regard to the case; but he added that if he could find any principle of law that would enable him to decide against them, he certainly should. These words, used by the sitting Judge, might be taken as an assurance that there was no principle of law which enabled him to decide against the plaintiff, and the House might pretty fairly assume that so far as the judgment of the Master of the Bolls was concerned, it would have been in favour of the claim of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Under these circumstances, he (Mr. Gregory) went upon the principle that the plaintiffs were right in their contention that they had a right to obtain what they asked for; and that if the case went on, there must be a decree for the full payment of the demand made by St. Bartholomew's Hospital up to 2s. 9d. in the pound. Now, what was the alternative? The alternative was provided by the Bill now before the House. By means of that Bill, the plaintiff, instead of enforcing their claims to 2s. 9d. in the pound, proposed to make a compromise which would ultimately amount to the levy of a rate of 1s. in the pound, reduced by particular circumstances to about 10 d., or less than one-third of what they were entitled to claim. At present, the suit in Chancery stood over until Michaelmas Term. It would be heard again at the Michaelmas Sittings, and the Master of the Rolls would then be asked to pronounce his judgment. The learned Judge had already intimated what that judgment would be, and there could be no doubt that the litigation would end in a decree enforcing the full claim to the rate of
    1510
    2s. 9d. in the pound. Under these circumstances, he asked if it would not be much better to accept the Bill now before the House, especially as it had already undergone the consideration of two Committees, one of the House of Commons, and one appointed by "another place." There was just one other point he was anxious to mention. The Statute, which permitted composition in the matter of tithes, could not apply to this particular case; but by it the Legislature had certainly sanctioned the principle of composition, and he ventured to say that that was, in reality, the principle adopted in the present instance. The House must also bear in mind this fact, that the parishioners who opposed the Bill were very few in number, and that the great majority of them had abstained from any opposition, and were satisfied with the Bill as it stood. He believed there was no doubt of the accuracy of this proposition. Even the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill did not pretend to represent any great body of the parishioners interested in the matter. Upon these grounds, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment, and to vote for the passing of the Bill.
    MR. PLIMSOLLsaid, the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory), who opposed the Amendment of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave), appeared to have forgotten, or perhaps he did not know, that the Master of the Rolls, in intimating his opinion in support of the claim, also thought that the injustice would be so flagrant that there would be no difficulty in obtaining an Act of Parliament to repeal the Act under which the claim was made. The opponents of the Bill were ready to run all the risks of the rejection of the Bill, and to fight it in "another place." Now, nearly every Member of the House had property somewhere. Who could tell that there might not be some dormant Act of Parliament throe or four centuries old, which might be revived after the lapse of that number of years, and render the owners of property liable to pay a claim of 2s. 9d. in the pound? If such a thing were possible, it would be a very serious matter to the owners of property everywhere. He also believed that the Governors of Christ's Hospital were divided on this question themselves. When the House were

    1511
    divided on this subject, about 10 days ago, at his (Mr. Plimsoll's) instance, when he went into the Lobby, a much respected Member of the House came to him and said he was one of the Governors of the Hospital, but he was quite ashamed of the claim put forward by his colleagues in the name of charity; and he walked out of the House without dividing upon the Bill. He (Mr. Plimsoll) hoped the House, for the sake of justice, would not pass such a monstrous measure. He might add that upon the occasion he referred to, the hon. Tellers who told against him were both Governors of the Hospital.
    MR. ALLCROFTwished to say a word in regard to the statements which had been made upon the other side. The Governors of Christ's Hospital were charged with making an immoral bargain. Now, the bargain was that instead of paying £200 a-year they should pay in future £100 a-year more, and the terms made by them with St. Bartholomew's Hospital were that the Hospital should take off £200 a year from the amount collected in the parish. Therefore, whether the bargain was immoral or not, the parish of Christchurch did not suffer to the extent of a single penny in consequence of it. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave) spoke of the area of Christ's Hospital being about to be used for building purposes, and that it would escape these rates. He wished to say that the area of Christ's Hospital was in three different parishes, and out of the portion of land on which the Hospital stood only a very small part of it was subject to this charge. But besides the area of Christ's Hospital on which the building stood, and in regard to which the compromise was made, they had extensive property in the parish which would be dealt with under the Bill in regard to rating exactly the same as the rest of the property in the parish. He had been induced to make these remarks, because he felt it right that he should correct some of the misstatements which had been made.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, he knew nothing of the case until he heard it discussed in the House the other day; but he did think the matter bore a peculiar aspect. They found that under an Act of Parliament more than 300 years old, it was proposed by a charitable authority to increase the rates of the
    1512
    parish to an enormous extent. They were church rates in their origin, and. were used as church rates for the maintenance of the church for many years. Now, although church rates had been abolished, and no alteration had been made in the payment of these rates for more than 200 years, it was now endeavoured to make this heavy additional charge. There ought to have been some Statute of Limitations which should have barred these gentlemen long ago from making such a claim as this, and from attempting, in the name of charity, to tax a very large parish for purposes, which were in their origin church rate purposes, at a rate of nearly 500 per cent more than the parish had been in the habit of paying for 200 years. If that was not a very strong proceeding in these days, he did not know what a strong proceeding was. He would ask the House to look at it from another point of view. Persons might have acquired property in the parish in total ignorance of this liability. He had no connection with the City of London in any way, but he was astonished that the City should put up with a proceeding of this sort, because there might be other claims to be started hereafter, and he did not see where the thing was to terminate. He thought they ought not to pass a Bill which one of the Judges of the land said would sanction a claim which was a monstrous abuse of authority, and which, according to that Judge, would involve a payment which was unjust in its nature. He thought the right thing for the House to do was to say that this Bill must stand over for another year; and in the meantime they should call upon the authorities of St. Bartholomew's Hospital to consider well what they were doing in the name of charity, and not to explode a mine in the district in which they were situated, under an Act of Parliament 300 years old, after their predecessors had entered into an arrangement which had been carried out for more than 200 years. He thought the case of the Hospital was a very weak one, unless there was some technical flaw which would override the case of the opposition. He must say that of all matters such a matter as this ought not to be decided by the casting vote of the Chairman of a Committee of four. Under these circumstances, he thought

    1513
    that time should be given for the reconsideration of the question.
    MR. RAIKES: I must apologize to the House for rising to address it again on this subject. I have already addressed it at some length in regard to the history of this Bill. The hon. Baronet (Sir Julian Goldsmid) appears to be in a state of some confusion in regard to the objects of the measure. The hon. Baronet appears to me to object to the Bill, because he considers it to be an extension of the principles of church rates; and I think there are other hon. Members in this House who, having a strong aversion to anything like church rates, oppose the Bill on that ground. Now, so far as I understand the matter, the Bill has no reference to church rates whatever. The only question involved is one of property subject to tithe rates, and it does not involve the question of church rates in any shape or form. There is another point upon which the hon. Baronet seems to be mistaken. He appeared to think that the Master of the Rolls had stigmatized this Bill as a monstrous proceeding. Now, the object of this Bill is to put a stop to that proceeding which the Master of the Rolls stigmatized as monstrous.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I do not like to interrupt the hon. Member; but what I wanted to say was that the Master of the Rolls stigmatized the revival of a claim which had not been brought forward for 200 years as a monstrous proceeding, and adjourned the case, as I understand, in order that steps might be taken for getting rid of this claim altogether.
    MR. RAIKES: I am glad that the hon. Member understands the matter rightly, but I think that the words he actually did use were the words which I have quoted. The Master of the Rolls, no doubt, used very strong terms in speaking of the claim which had been put forward, and as the hon. Member for Barn-staple (Mr. T. Cave) has referred to what I said the other day, I am bound to add that he has quoted me correctly. If I had been the arbitrator to whom the matter had been referred, I do not think that I should have decided in favour of the precise compromise which is embodied in the Bill. I do not stand here now as the apologist of the promoters for the course they have taken in the matter. I am satisfied
    1514
    that the House will not determine the issue from this point of view, but will regard it as a question of the interests of the parishioners in this particular parish. The London City Churches Act, which I quoted the other day, provides that this particular parish should have power to agree by a resolution of its vestry, to compromise any claims which might be got up in respect of tithes. The vestry have full powers given to them by that Act, and this Bill is, I believe, an outcome of an agreement of this kind. That is, I think, a matter on which there can be no doubt and no question. The claims put forward by St. Bartholomew's Hospital would amount, I am assured, to no less a sum than £7,000 a-year, chargeable upon the parish; whereas the arrangement come to by the vestry with the plaintiffs provides that the charge shall only be £1,100 a-year at present, rising to £1,600 a-year at the end of five years, and finally becoming a charge of £2,200 a-year. Therefore, it is quite clear, assuming that the claim of St. Bartholomew's Hospital is a good one in law, that the parish have made an exceedingly good bargain. Hon. Members who have spoken to-day appear to think that by opposing this Bill they would be rejecting the claim of St. Bartholomew's Hospital; whereas, in point of fact, by rejecting the Bill, they would probably saddle the parish with the full liability of £7,000 a-year instead of £1,100, £1,600, and £2,200, which is the full extent of the claim sanctioned by this measure. It must be borne in mind that the Master of the Rolls did not reject the demand made by the Hospital. The Master of the Rolls clearly indicated that however much he disliked the claim put forward, he was probably powerless to resist it, and if those opposing this measure have their way, and the Bill be rejected to-day, we shall only have to look forward to the imposition of the full amount of £7,000 a-year as the result of this endeavour to resist the imposition of £1,100 a-year. What has happened with regard to the Bill in this House? We are told that upstairs the Bill was carried only by the casting vote of the Chairman. I hardly think that much should be made of the precise proportion in which the Committee decided. The decision of the bare majority is the decision of the Committee,

    1515
    and as such is entitled to the respect of this House. The hon. Member for Barnstaple has shown us by his advocacy of the views of the opponents today, that they were well and ably represented upon the Committee. There is an additional reason why the promoters of the Bill should be entitled to some consideration at the hands of the House. The Bill has only reached this House very late in the Session. All the parties who had the right to be heard before the Committee had full opportunity of being heard; but the Committee decided in favour of the Bill, and in the ordinary course it would have been read a third time and passed through all its stages. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, however, interposed with a new clause on behalf of the Post Office, and the course taken to-day gives us an illustration of the effect of introducing now matter, which has not been brought before the Committee. If the House accept the Amendment, they will show that there is considerable uncertainty in decisions of the Committees upstairs, and will increase opposition to Private Bills in all their stages. I am sorry to detain the House so long on a Bill of this sort; but there has been something said in regard to Messrs. Tylor, who were opposed to the Bill, to which I am bound to refer. I am not in the confidence of Messrs. Tylor, and I am not entitled to make any statement on their behalf as to what induced them to withdraw their opposition to the measure; but I am assured by information that has reached me that the statement made by the hon. Member for Barnstaple as to the reason which induced them to withdraw their opposition is not correct. I think, however, that he said himself he understood the shadowy arrangement he referred to had been abrogated. The House must not therefore be led away by any notion that Messrs. Tylor have been "squared." Messrs. Tylor have boon treated, exactly the same as the rest of the parishioners, and I believe they are quite contented with their position.
    MR. T. CAVE: They were "squared" originally, and if the bargain has fallen through, it has not been from any unwillingness on their part. I may say most authoritatively that they are entirely malcontent with regard to the Bill.
    MR. RAIKES: I believe that Messrs. Tylor are not so much opposed to the Bill as the hon. Gentleman seems to think. Then, again, with regard to Christ's Hospital. Very much has been made of that case; but all it amounts to is that a compromise has been effected whereby that Hospital, instead of paying £200 a-year, will in future pay £300 a-year. I believe the whole effect of this Bill will be to require Christ's Hospital to pay permanently £100 a-year more than they do at present, while the parish itself will be relieved to the extent of £300 a-year, in consequence of the bargain made by Christ's Hospital. That I think is not an unfair proposal, for it must be borne in mind that the large bulk of the property of Christ's Hospital, according to the statement of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Allcroft), who represents Christ's Hospital in the matter, is not within the parish of Christ-church at all. I confess that the matter is one of great difficulty. I think I have shown the House that, so far as I am concerned, I very much regret that such a claim should have been put forward by St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and that in consequence of the arrangement made by the parish, the House should be called upon to sanction such an arrangement. But I do not wish the House to run away with the impression that if they reject the Bill they will do good to the parish. It appears to me, on the contrary, that they will do a very considerable injury; and, considering that this Bill is the result of an agreement made between the plaintiffs in the suit on the one hand, and the parish on the other hand, I think it is undesirable, because a few Gentlemen happen to dissent from this arrangement, that the House should reject a measure which is the result of a general consensus of opinion among all the parties concerned.
    SIR HENRY JAMESremarked, that a great deal that had been said by the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees would meet the entire concurrence of the House; but there was one thing that had not been noticed. As he understood, everyone who brought an impartial judgment to bear upon the matter—the Master of the Rolls, his hon. Friend the Chairman of Committees, and everyone else—seemed to agree that the claim of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, if not immoral, was a

    1517
    most objectionable claim. In considering the matter, he started from that point, and the view presented was, that St. Bartholomew's Hospital having brought forward a most objectionable claim, regarded in a moral point of view, and one which that House ought to be the last to sanction, it was proposed that they should resist this immoral or objectionable claim, and they were asked by way of compromise to pass a Bill which provided that instead of receiving the whole £7,000 a-year, the Hospital should receive £2,200 a-year, after an interval of 10 years. The House was asked to take upon themselves the responsibility of accepting that compromise, and of giving to St. Bartholomew's Hospital a sum of £2,200 a-year at the end of 10 years. He was quite aware of the answer which the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees had given—that if they did not allow this compromise, it would be the worse for the parish. But, in the first place, there were parishioners who took a different view, and wished their legal rights to be determined. Under those circumstances, he thought it would be a strong measure to compel persons who were prepared to go to litigation to have a compromise, against their own will, forced upon them. There was another view in which the matter might be regarded. When the authorities of St. Bartholomew's Hospital received this sum, originally, it only amounted, in fact, to the sum of £200 a-year; but, by virtue of an old Statute recently discovered, it was found that the rate levied upon the rental value of the property would produce a much larger sum, the property itself being in a much different position at the present day from that which it occupied formerly. It was, however, felt that it would be a great injustice if the authorities of the Hospital were now to be allowed, at the end of 200 years, after having been willing to receive £200 a-year for the whole of that period, to raise the sum by virtue of an old and forgotten Statute to £7,000 a-year; and if the claim was endeavoured to be enforced, it would be the duty of the Legislature to step in and take that sum away from the Hospital. A lapse of 200 years might be fairly considered, from every proper point of view, to have got rid of vested rights. As it was by virtue of an. Act
    1518
    of Parliament that the Hospital made the claim, it was only just that Parliament should consider what their fair rights were. If the claim were considered to be an immoral claim, it would be the duty of the House to alter it. If the House rejected the Bill, it might be that the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) would be right in his supposition that the judgment of the Master of the Rolls would go against those who wished not to be bound by this compromise. There might be, for all he (Sir Henry James) could tell, a technical judgment of £7,000 a-year against them; but Parliament had the means of setting that matter right, and as one Committee had decided by acknowledging the compromise entered into, that £2,200 a-year was a proper sum to give to the Hospital, it might be the duty of some other Committee to determine what was a proper sum for the Hospital to receive, so that the Hospital might be saved from the disgrace of having it said—and it had been uncontradicted by any Governor present — that the claim put forward was an immoral claim, and a claim that ought not to be supported. It would be, he thought, an act of injustice to those of the parishioners who objected to the compromise, to pass the present Bill; and he, therefore, supported the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Barn-staple, which would afford time for the re-consideration of the matter, with the view of determining what was the proper sum St. Bartholomew's Hospital was entitled to receive.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWtrusted that the House would bear with him for a few moments while he offered some reasons which, he thought, ought to induce the House not to reject the Bill. All would agree that some very strong language had been used against the Governors of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and the House ought to give those who represented the Governors an opportunity of saying what they had to say in respect of the course pursued. He would touch, for a moment, upon the last point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James)—namely, that the Governors of the Hospital had been following an immoral and objectionable course in bringing their suit before the Master of the Rolls. But the Master of the Bolls ac-

    1519
    quitted them of all blame in the matter, and said that as trustees they were bound to obtain a legal decision upon the question. It was in consequence of the suggestion of the Master of the Rolls that the Governors had felt it right to introduce the present Bill. They were anxious in some way or other to have a compromise settled, as all they desired was to obtain a legal position, be that, as trustees, they might be able to take that which they were legally entitled to take. That was all that the Hospital desired. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. T. Cave) had charged them with having made an immoral arrangement with Messrs. Tylor. He wished to say, with regard to that charge, that those who looked through the Bill would see that although, in the first instance, it was proposed that Messrs. Tylor should, under a compromise, pay a fixed sum, instead of being placed on the same basis as Christ's Hospital, it was afterwards determined that they should be placed on the same footing as the rest of the parishioners, and they accepted that arrangement. There was, however, some reason why they should have been placed in an exceptional position. They had land which was not yet covered, and therefore it was felt that they might be dealt with exceptionally in the matter; but when the case came before the Master of the Rolls, they consented to be placed in the same position as the other parishioners. Therefore, as the Bill stood, no parishioner stood on a different footing from another, except the trustees of Christ's Hospital, for reasons which had already been explained to the House. A great deal had been said in regard to the view taken by the Master of the Rolls. He would not trouble the House with any expression of opinion of his own; but he would prefer to read the words of the Master of the Rolls himself. The case lasted throughout the whole of one day, and the plaintiffs naturally did the best they could to make out their case before the learned Judge. The Master of the Rolls intimated that he was clearly of opinion that his decree must go against the defendants — Messrs. Tylor and Phillips—two of the largest ratepayers, who had been selected to fight the battle on behalf of the parish. In consequence of this intimation, a meeting of the
    1520
    parishioners was called the same night, and at that meeting there was a unanimous vote that the compromise which had previously been suggested and discussed should be accepted. In order to show the view which the Master of the Rolls took, he (Sir Sydney Waterlow) would read some of the remarks made by the learned Judge during the hearing of the case—
    "The Master of the Rolls.—I will do this—if you will both agree on terms—that being the present condition of matters, I will make an absolute decree which shall bind both, that is, in the shape of a compromise."
    Mr. Chitty, who appeared for the Hospital, said—
    "I do not know whether we can got the Bill through by consent. "Would your Lordship assist us in any way judicially in getting the Bill through?
    "The Master of the Rolls.—Yes; I will say this, that I think the compromise is not—as at present advised—at the disadvantage of the parishioners. I will not give a final opinion. I will say this much for you to help you through with the Bill, not intending to give a final opinion. . . . . I think it is a reasonable offer. The defendant now agreeing to withdraw all opposition to the Bill, and if the Bill passes each side to pay their own costs and let the thing stand over to the first cause day in November. . . . And if there is any difficulty with the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, you may say, according to my present— not final opinion—but according to my present view, the arrangement is, in point of law, an advantageous one to the parishioners. . . . . . . It is perfectly well understood. I will tell you what I will do—I will let the cause stand over to the first cause day in next Sittings, Michaelmas Sittings, of course, with liberty to either party to apply. If there is anything you want from me I shall be most happy to assist you.
    He wished to call especial attention to the last two sentences—
    "Mr. Chitty.—And your Lordship thinks the arrangement is proper for us also? We are a Charity.
    "The Master of the Rolls.—I have no doubt about that, Mr. Chitty; I will express that in any terms you think fit."
    The Governors of St. Bartholomew's Hospital had throughout been guided in this matter by their legal advisers, and were fully justified in attempting to get a decision upon it in a Court of Law. Under the City Tithes Act, passed some years ago, the several parishes were authorized to commute their tithes by arrangement with the owners; and by a comparison with what had been done in similar cases, the present compromise

    1521
    would be seen to be a very fair one. Besides, by Act of Parliament, the ratepayers were bound by the majority of the Vestry; and the longer a settlement was delayed the worse would be the compromise, because the larger would be the sum with which a compromise must then begin.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not think anyone would blame the trustees for acting as they had done. They were told they had a legal right to this money; and it would have been difficult for them to avoid attempting to obtain what that legal right gave them. But it seemed to him that that legal right was, in fact, an actual wrong. It was an attempt to revive a claim which had been dormant for more than 200 years; and he could not help thinking that hon. Members who had spoken in support of the Bill now before the House—and even the Chairman of Ways and Means himself—had forgotten for the moment that they were addressing a Legislative Body. The House of Commons was not merely an interpreter of the law, but a maker and a reformer of the law; and if it were the case—as seemed to be admitted—that this was an unjust claim, it was the business of the House, when the subject was brought clearly before it, to set matters right. He was informed that if the Bill were now rejected the course of litigation might go on; but they must remember that the Master of the Rolls had given a very strong hint to Parliament, in saying that this was a case for legislation. That being so, it would be a strong measure to refuse the wish of even two or three parishioners; and he could not see, and had not hoard, any reason why the Legisture should not prevent an injustice being committed, and endeavour to effect a reform in the law.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he desired to explain the course which he intended to take with reference to the Bill, in view of the period of the Session at which the House had now arrived. It seemed to him that what Parliament ought to avoid doing was to bind unwilling parties to a compromise, from which, if they were prepared to litigate on their own behalf, they might escape as individuals. He understood that the suit which was raised in this case was instituted by a few parishioners, who took up the cudgels, so to speak, nomi-
    1522
    nally for the rest; but under circumstances which did not really bind the others as to the result. If the Bill now under discussion were to pass, the hands of those who were concerned in this matter would be undoubtedly tied, and they would be debarred from disputing by litigation this extraordinary claim. At an earlier period of the Session he should have been disposed to move the re-committal of the measure, in order to have secured, if possible, that it should not have been allowed to operate upon unwilling ratepayers; but there was now no time for taking that course. The Bill was, no doubt, a reasonable one as regarded those who were prepared to be bound by it, but it was not reasonable in relation to those who were not so prepared; and unless the supporters of the measure were ready to suggest some way of escape from the difficulty, he must vote against the third reading of the Bill. At the same time, he might be allowed to say that, individually, he believed it was a foolish thing on the part of a minority of the ratepayers to oppose the proposed compromise. But if those ratepayers were prepared to litigate on their own behalf rather than submit to the arrangement, it was no part of the duty of the House to thrust down their throats that which was unwelcome to them.
    COLONEL BERESFORDsaid, he regarded the Bill as unjust and extortionate. He had no belief in compromises. The matter might be compromised, apparently, to-day; but there was no reason why, at some future period, the £7,000 should not again be demanded. Having no faith in such an arrangement as that now suggested, he should also vote against the Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 78: Majority 7.—(Div. List, No. 252.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Bill put off for three months.

    PARLIAMENT—CLARE COUNTY WRIT.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS reported from the Select Committee on Clare County Writ; That they had agreed to the

    1523
    following Resolution, which they had directed him to report to the House:—
    "That your Committee are of opinion that Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, whose title to a seat in the House of Commons has been called in question, being now absent in Australia, should upon due notice have an opportunity of being heard in defence of his seat. And your Committee report that it being impossible that Sir Bryan O'Loghlen should be heard during the present Session, they recommend that the proceedings of this Committee be now adjourned, and that the Committee he re-appointed next Session in order that before a final decision shall be taken on this case, such notice may have been given to Sir Bryan O'Loghlen as may enable him, if he think fit, to be hoard in defence of his seat. And your Committee further recommend that the Secretary of State for the Colonies be requested to communicate forthwith a Copy of the Resolution of this Committee to Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, which shall operate as full and sufficient notice to him to be prepared at the commencement of the next Session to appear, if he think fit, in defence of his seat."
    Report to lie upon the Table.
    Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 343.]
    Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to give directions to Her Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies to communicate the Report to Sir Bryan O'Loghlen, Her Majesty's Attorney General for Victoria.

  QUESTIONS.
    NAVY—ENGINE-ROOM ARTIFICERS.

      QUESTION.
      DR. CAMERONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is not a fact that by a Fleet Circular (No. 21), issued in June 1877, certain improvements were made in the position of engine room artificers in the Navy, and a certain uniform prescribed for them; whether within the last few months they have not been for the first time ordered to wear the badge of a chief petty officer; whether there is any truth in the statement that this order had given rise to so much dissatisfaction among them that many of them have demanded their discharge from the Service; and, if he would explain what reason there is for enforcing an order on a point apparently so unmaterial if, as it is alleged, it is regarded with so much distaste by the persons to whom it refers?
      MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, it is true that in 1877 new Regulations were issued regarding the position of engine-room artificers, and prescribing a certain uniform for them to wear; but it is the right and the duty of the Admiralty to make such alterations as they think fit. The Queen's Regulations provide that the officers and seamen of the Fleet shall wear such uniform as Her Majesty shall from time to time direct. In February, 1878, the engine-room artificers were ordered to wear the distinctive badge of their rank in common with other chief petty officers. In some few instances dissatisfaction was expressed, and some men demanded their discharge, which was refused. The reason for enforcing the order lies in the imperative necessity of requiring obedience to orders when given, as a point of discipline. The badge is one of rank and not of degradation, and is so viewed by the great majority of the men. Since it has been required to be worn, the applicants for entry have been so numerous that the numbers are complete, and no more can now be taken into the Service.

      ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1870— WYMINGTON. —QUESTION.
      MR. RYLANDS (for Mr. CHAMBERLAIN)asked the Vice President of the Council, with reference to the want of a public elementary school in the parish of Wymington since 1870, Whether he is aware that no further progress has been made in the provision of school accommodation since his answer to a question on this subject last March; and, whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to order the formation of a School Board so that the necessary provision for elementary education in the parish, which had been delayed for eight years, may at last be made?
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, in the answer of my Predecessor in March last, a detailed account was given of the exceptional difficulties in providing a school which this small parish had to overcome, and the consequent delay. The Department have been assured that a public elementary school has been erected, and we are in communication with the locality as to the engagement of a certificated teacher. So long as the locality makes and is making a bonâ fide effort to voluntarily provide

      1525
      school accommodation, I should be very reluctant to impose a school board upon them, though, of course, there is a limit to the time during which the effort must be completed.

      RAILWAY ACCIDENTS, 1877—CONTINUOUS FOOTBOARDS.—QUESTION.
      MR. GREGORYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report of Accidents on Railways in the United Kingdom during the year 1877, and the renewed recommendation contained in such report of continuous footboards to the carriages; and, whether he proposes to take any steps for giving effect to such recommendation?
      MR. J. G. TALBOT: Sir, in the absence of my noble Friend, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex that our attention has been directed to the Report he refers to, which is, in fact, the Report of our own Department, and to the recommendations therein contained. Lord Henniker, who represents the Board of Trade in the House of Lords, was instructed to inform a noble Lord, in answer to a Question on the subject of continuous footboards, that we were preparing a circular letter to the various Railway Companies on this matter. That letter has now been prepared, and if my hon. Friend will move for it, I shall be happy to lay it upon the Table.

    INDIA (FINANCE)—THE INDIA DEBT.

      QUESTION.
      GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the House may expect the Returns which were promised on the 21st June, 1877, in the following words of the Under Secretary:—
      ". . . A Return was in preparation showing the total amount of the India Debt, and another of Income and Expenditure was in preparation . . . . the Secretary of State . . . . had accordingly ordered them to he produced annually?"
      MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, my noble Friend, now the Vice President of the Council (Lord George Hamilton), was referring to some suggestions made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), who was good enough to communicate
      1526
      with the India Office last year. Mainly in consequence of his suggestion, a Return—No. 256 of Session 1877—was issued, and another has been prepared which he has not yet seen. I may add that, as regards Debt, we have already given four Returns this year—two of them on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member.

      CRIMINAL LAW—PROSECUTION OF CRIME—LEGISLATION.—QUESTION.
      SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in next Session the Bill so often promised for the appointment of a Public Prosecutor, or any other measure having for its object the amelioration of the Law regarding the prosecution of crime?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had stated some time ago that he intended before the close of the Session to introduce a Bill with reference to Coroners, and he still proposed to do so, in order that it might be printed and discussed in the Recess, with a view to its being referred to a Select Committee next Session. A Bill had also been prepared for the purpose of dealing with the appointment of Public Prosecutors, and he thought it might be a wise course to refer that Bill to the same Committee.

      INDIA—THE STRAITS SETTLEMENT— TROOPS IN PERAK—PAY AND ALLOWANCES.—QUESTION.
      MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the officers and troops sent from India to serve in Perak during the outbreak there are not to receive any extra pay or allowances, and that the officers and troops already stationed there at the time of the outbreak are to receive only such additional allowance as will bring their pay up to the ordinary Indian rate; if he would explain what is the reason for this apparent departure from the promise of the late Secretary for War, who on the 9th April 1877, in this House, said—
      "It has been arranged that they" (the officers and troops serving in Perak) "shall have the same advantages as were enjoyed by the European troops sent to Abyssinia;"

      1527
      and, whether those European troops did not receive the "donation batta" in addition to the usual Indian pay?
      COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: Sir, practically, the same advantages were granted to the troops serving in Perak as were granted during the Abyssinian Expedition, except as regards "donation batta." Working pay was granted to the non-commissioned officers and men of the British troops, while serving in the field in Perak. Extraordinary field allowances for six months has been granted to the officers, which, together with the Straits "consolidated Colonial allowance" for four months, and the ordinary regimental pay, amount to about the same as India pay and command pay. The "donation batta" was given to the troops in Abyssinia after, and in consequence of, the victory at Magdala, being a "grant determined after a campaign, and on the special circumstances of the campaign." It being thus special to the victory at Magdala, it was not contemplated by the late Secretary of State for War in his reply on the 9th of April, 1877.

      NAVY —THE NAVAL REVIEW AT PORTSMOUTH.—QUESTION.
      CAPTAIN PIMasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If there is any objection to increase the number of tickets to be given to honourable Members to see the Naval Review on the 13th, and especially if the Members' ticket can be made transferable?
      MR. A. F. EGERTON: I beg to inform the hon. and gallant Member that the arrangement will be this. Each Member will be entitled to two tickets, one for himself and not transferable, and one for a member of his family. Any hon. Member wishing more tickets will have to apply to the Secretary to the Admiralty for them; but the accommodation being limited, it is impossible to say whether such applications will be granted.

      PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS—MUSICAL INSTRUCTION.—QUESTION.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been called to Memorials on the subject of musical instruction in
      1528
      public Elementary Schools, lately addressed to the Council by the Bishop of Manchester and others; and, whether he proposes to take any steps with a view to the revision of the system of musical instruction which now exists?
      LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, I have read the Memorials alluded to, calling attention to the present system of musical instruction in public elementary schools. We propose to send Mr. Hullah, our Inspector of Music, as soon as the musical examinations of this year are over, on a tour of inspection abroad, in order that he may investigate and report upon the system of musical instruction in vogue in France, Germany, Austria, and other foreign countries. Until we have received his Report, it would be premature to take into consideration, with a view to revision, the present system of musical instruction.

      LAW AND JUSTICE — LEICESTER ASSIZES.— QUESTION.
      MR. P. A. TAYLORasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government propose that a third Assize should be appointed for Leicester in October; and, if so, whether pleadings are to be made deliverable in the Vacation?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER),in reply, said, it was not intended to appoint a third Assize for Leicester in October.

    INDIA—THE MADRAS CIVIL SERVICE— CASE OF MR. F. LASCELLES.

      QUESTION.
      GENERAL SHUTEasked, the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has considered the case of Mr. Francis Lascelles, late of the Madras Civil Service; and, whether he is prepared to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into all the circumstances attending it?
      MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, since my hon. and gallant Friend placed his Motion upon the Paper, I have looked carefully into this case. It appears that the prosecution of which Mr. Lascelles complains was held nearly 40 years ago. The facts have since been inquired into over and over again, and successive Secretaries of State have pronounced against entertaining Mr. Lascelles' claims, and have refused to re-open the

      1529
      question. I cannot, therefore, consent to the appointment of a Committee, or hold out the slightest hope to Mr. Lascelles of any re-consideration of his case. I cannot but think that if my hon. and gallant Friend were aware of all the facts, he would not be disposed to press the matter further.

      POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHIC DEPARTMENT) CHARGES.—QUESTIONS.
      MR. ANDERSONasked the Postmaster General, If he has considered, or if, before the Telegraph Conference, he will consider, the expediency of adopting a letter scale or syllable scale of charge, in place of the present word scale, with a view of encouraging the use of short words, and thereby enabling the wires to convey a greater number of messages?
      LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, the question of adopting a letter or syllable scale of charge for telegraphic messages has been considered; but there are practical difficulties in the way of its adoption. It is probable that the question will be again considered at the next Conference.
      MR. WHITWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether the International Conference on Postal and Telegraphic matters will take place this year; and, if not, whether he will direct that the inequality of the rate between telegrams from the Continent to London and telegrams from the Continent to the provinces will be removed by action of the Home authorities?
      LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, the Postal Congress was held in Paris in May and June of this year. The Telegraph Conference will meet in London in June of next year. I have no power to alter the rates for telegrams; but negotiations are now going on with foreign Governments for the assimilation of the London and provincial rates.
      MR. WHITWELLasked, whether matters would be settled before next year?
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had reason to hope it would be settled speedily.

      CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS ACT—CARLISLE.—QUESTION.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Mr. CHAMBERLAIN)asked the Secretary
      1530
      of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to order a prosecution of the persons (including an Alderman and Councillor of the borough and a Guardian of the Poor) who were reported by the Commissioner to have been guilty of corrupt practices at a recent municipal election in Carlisle?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the matter had been put in the hands of the Treasury Solicitors, who did not advise a prosecution.

      INDIA (FINANCE)—THE INDIAN BUDGET.—QUESTIONS.
      MR. HOPWOODasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, when he proposed to consider the Indian Budget, on Tuesday next, he had taken into consideration the fact that many Members of the House had made arrangements to be present at the Naval Review on that day; and, whether he will take the Committee on a day more convenient to the majority of Members?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not know whether I am to infer from the Question that we are not likely to have an attendance on the day named. If so, it will affect other Business besides the Indian Budget. I am afraid at this period of the year we could not think of adjourning over the day, and, on the whole, I think the best arrangement is that we have proposed. We have already had a great deal of discussion on Indian finance this Session. It is, of course, a very important subject, and I have no doubt many hon. Members will forego the pleasure of seeing the Naval Review in order to take part in its consideration. I am sorry if we interfere with any hon. Gentleman who wants to go to the Review, but at present I am afraid I cannot propose any other arrangement.
      In reply to Mr. FAWCETT,
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Indian Budget would be the first Order of the Day on Tuesday next, unless it were necessary to put some formal Business before it.

    TURKEY AND RUSSIA—BULGARIA.

      QUESTION.
      MR. BRUCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table the

      1531
      Report of Consul Blunt on the proceedings in Bulgaria consequent on the Russian occupation?
      MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, there was no objection to lay upon the Table the Report referred to by his hon. Friend. He thought the best course would be for his hon. Friend to move for it, and it would be granted as an unopposed Return.

    SALMON FISHERY INSPECTORS.

      QUESTION.
      MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the appointment of Salmon Fishery Inspectors under 24 and 25 Vic. c. 100, is necessary for the public service; and, whether he intends, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, to renew the power of appointing them?
      SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, during the time he was at the Home Office he was fully satisfied, and he believed that opinion was shared by the Secretary of State, that the result of the labours of these Inspectors was that a large source of the food supply of the people was not only increased, but reduced in price. As the exertions of the Inspectors would tend still further to increase that supply, he thought their services were necessary, and he had taken steps to provide for the continuance of the section of the Act under which they were appointed by the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

    POPULATION STATISTICS — THE REGISTRAR GENERAL'S RETURNS.

      QUESTION.
      GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has had his attention drawn to the delays in submitting to Parliament the Annual Reports of Births, Marriages, and Deaths of the three divisions; and, whether any improvement can be effected by more promptly rendering these Reports, so as to extend their utility?
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,in reply, said, that his attention had been called to the delay in the presentation of these Reports. He had communicated with the Registrar General, who had informed him that he would take, and had taken, measures in order that the next annual
      1532
      Report should be produced in April next instead of July. With regard to Scotland and Ireland, the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Lord Advocate were in communication with the Registrar General of those countries.

    FIJI—STATUS OF THE NATIVES.

      QUESTION.
      DR. O'LEARYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a Fijian native is to be deemed a British subject; whether, as such, he is entitled to engage himself as a labourer on a plantation owned by Englishmen or other owners of property in Fiji; and, whether the Governor of Fiji has been invested with such extraordinary powers as would enable him to forbid such natives to leave their native towns, on their being willing, after their term of service had expired, to re-engage themselves under their present employer for a new term of service under conditions most advantageous to their employers and agreeable to their own wishes and interests?
      SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH,in reply, said, that a Fijian Native was a British subject, and was entitled to engage himself as a labourer, subject to the regulations which had been made for the protection of the Native population of the Islands. He did not know what was referred to by the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question; but certainly no information of any such action having been taken by the Governor of Fiji had reached him.

      EXCHEQUER BILLS AND BONDS (No. 2) BILL.—QUESTION.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing that the Exchequer Bills and Bonds (No. 2) Bill had been put down very low on the Paper for that night, he would take steps so that in future stages of the Bill it would come on at a time when there would be a full opportunity of discussing the questions connected with it?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he would endeavour to do so.

      NAVY—TRANSPORTS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN.—QUESTION.
      MR. MUNDELLAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether all or

      1533
      any of the transports which were chartered for the conveyance of the Indian troops to Malta were still retained by the Government; and, whether it had been necessary for any of them to return to Bombay to obtain the required supplies for the rations of the troops?
      MR. W. H. SMITH,in reply, said, that nine sailing ships had been ordered home for discharge some weeks ago, and if not already discharged, they would be immediately they arrived in this country; 15,944 tons had been re-chartered at from 20 s. to 22 s. per ton; the Bangalore, a Peninsular and Oriental steamer, was discharged in India on the 27th of July, and four British Indian steamships had been ordered to be discharged immediately. He was not aware that vessels had been ordered to India with rations.

      PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
      In reply to Mr. DILLWYN,
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there would be a Morning Sitting to-morrow; but he was not able, at present, to fix the Business.

    ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

    NAVY—THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVES.

      RESOLUTION.
      CAPTAIN PIM: Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the present condition of the Royal Naval Reserve; and to move—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, the Royal Naval Reserve is not adapted for the present requirements of the Nation, and should at once be superseded or at least supplemented by a large increase of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers; and that in order to secure efficiency such men should he trained on hoard sea-going gunboats stationed round the Coast and available for service on the shortest notice."
      Sir, I do not propose to take up the time of the House by going into the state and condition of the Coastguard, but
      1534
      will confine myself chiefly to the Naval Reserves raised from the Mercantile Marine, and that splendid body of Volunteers, the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers. I should not have addressed the House on this subject had I not been, nearly 20 years ago, when in command of H. M. S. Gorgon, intrusted with raising and organizing the Royal Naval Reserve in our Northern ports, and had I not, from that day to this, taken a deep interest in the Force, and in the Voluntary movement generally. To give an idea of the present value of the Royal Naval Reserve, I must ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, while I lay before hon. Members a few facts about the British Mercantile Marine. Our Mercantile Marine consists of about 25,000 ships, of which, say, 5,000 are steamers. These vessels are manned by some 200,000 persons, of whom certainly not more than 20,000 are real British seamen, the rest being made up mostly of foreigners and riff-raff of the worst description—drunken, mutinous scoundrels, with no knowledge of their work— in fact, a disgrace to the flag under which they serve. I am bound to say that the best of these men are the foreigners, especially some 8,000 to 10,000 Russian Fins, who are now serving in our Mercantile Marine; but I have seen very many ships with not an Englishman on board—not even the captain. Take the case of the Lennie, Caswell, and many more. Sir, it is from such men as that we have to draw our Reserves; and the late Admiral Superintendent of these Reserves reported in a Return, laid before this House last year, that all the available British seamen in the Mercantile Marine—some 12,000 or 13,000—had entered the Reserve. The original idea was that the nation should have 30,000 seamen out of the Merchant Service as Reserve men to man our Fleets in time of war, and I submit to the House that this number was not one too many; but we find, from the Admiral Superintendent's Report, that we have every available British seaman, and that the total amounts only to 12,000 or 13,000. But, Sir, I will show to the House that we dare not take any of these men away from our merchant ships in time of war, and that, practically, we have no Reserve whatever from our Merchant Service; that it is a snare and a delusion, and that the nation is paying some £200,000

      1535
      per annum for what is worse than useless; and that at a time when, for the same money, the services of at least 30,000 Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers might be easily obtained. We dare not take any of the so-called Royal Naval Reserve men in time of war, even if they happened to be at home, and for this reason—that our own merchant ships must be manned to lay out coals, stores, munitions, troops, &c.; and, above all, bring home our food supply, without which we should be starved into submission in a month. We are a great nation, but we must have food; and, as I take it, no shipowner would risk his vessel with foreigners and riff-raff in the day of need, it is quite evident that our 12,000 or 13,000 Reserve men could not be spared from our merchant ships for a single day. I have more than once pointed out the grave danger to England in respect to her food supply, and the employment of foreign seamen, who, of course, would either leave in war time, or remain only to seize, scuttle, or otherwise destroy our helpless merchant ships on board of which they were serving. That this is no imaginary danger is more than shadowed forth in the proclamation, which I hold in my hand, of the Czarewitch, in respect to fitting out Russian privateers—the full text of which is published in The Morning Post of the 13th of May last. I will only read one clause—
      "Will our sailors be able to attack? Of course, they will, for they are Russians. But we must give them an abundance of good and rapid ships, and they will soon find out the weak points of our new adversary. Dozens of vessels, under the command of competent captains, may be scattered over all the commercial routes of our new enemy and put a stop to his universal trade. A month's blockade like this will have a singular effect upon that trade, and the heaps of gold of which he is so proud will almost melt away like snow."
      As regards the urgent necessity of keeping up our supplies, I must ask the indulgence of the House to a few facts and figures. At the risk of being accused of repetition, I will again point out that the population, according to the statistical Return, in the year 1801, amounted to 10,472,048; and increased from this to 34,000,000 in 1878. That the United Kingdom was not dependent on foreign countries for the supply of wheat for the first 35 years of the present century. During the period which has elapsed
      1536
      since 1835, a remarkable change has taken place; the requirements of an increased population, the consequent demand for an increased quantity of food, have combined to render the country dependent for two-thirds of its supply of food on foreign countries. Of wheat alone, it appears that the annual importation had risen to a total of grain of all kinds, including flour, to 107,521,642 cwt. in 1875, and last year to 1,000,000 cwt. more. Sir, last year we imported no less than 1,000,000 tons of grain from America, mostly in English vessels. I think I have shown that our Mercantile Marine is in a most deplorable condition, and that, practically, we have no Naval Reserve. I now come to the second part of my Motion—namely,
      "That the Royal Naval Reserve should at once be superseded, or at least supplemented, by a large increase of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers; and that in order to secure efficiency such men should he trained on board sea-going gunboats stationed round the coast and available for service on the shortest notice."
      It is needless to take up the time of the House by eulogizing the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers. I can only say that in all my experience I have never seen more zeal or better drill on board the smartest man-of-war than I have seen at Liverpool and London on board the drill ships used by the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers; and, moreover, they are always on the spot, ready for service. Sir, the Government proposed to utilize our merchant steam ships in the event of war by putting guns on board. There never was a greater mistake. Our long narrow merchant steam vessels are totally unfit to carry guns. I believe they would capsize when light, and getting out of coals, or, at all events, when the guns were fired all the rivet-heads would be started or fall out, and the vessels never see a harbour again. What we want is a number of sea-going gun vessels with the longest-range guns on board. These vessels—of which there has been a mechanical drawing for some months in the Tea Room—would cost some £30,000, as against £70,000 or £80,000 for a merchant steamer. What I say to the Government is this—Encourage the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, increase their strength from 500 to 30,000 at least, and station sea-going gunboats, each carrying a heavy gun, at every point where there is water enough

      1537
      to float them. This Force alone, manned by Volunteers, would set at defiance any and every hostile combination against England. Seamen and handy sea-going small craft is what England wants, and it will go hard with her if she does not strain every nerve to obtain them. The Navy is the life's blood of the nation; good and efficient Reserves are essential to it; therefore, Sir, I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the Royal Naval Reserve is not adapted for the present requirements of the Nation, and should at once be superseded or at least supplemented by a large increase of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers; and that, in order to secure efficiency, such men should be trained on board sea-going gunboats stationed round the Coast and available for service on the shortest notice,"—(Captain Pim,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      MR. W. H. SMITHregretted that it was not possible for him to agree to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated that there were only 500 Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers, and they consisted of three brigades, stationed in London, Liverpool, and Bristol. The total number of officers and men was 1,056, and only 592 were efficient men. The question really was, what was the best Reserve that could be obtained? He believed that the first and second class of the Royal Naval Reserve —composed, as they were, of bonâ fide sailors—were the best kind of Reserve we could get. The first-class numbered 11,753 men, and the second 5,642. But, said the hon. and gallant Member, the first-class Reserve men would not be available in time of war. There he differed from the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and his impression was shared not only by his Colleagues, but by almost every naval officer he had come into contact with. In the event of war the maritime trade of this country would inevitably fall off to some extent, and numbers of those men would consequently be set free for their naval duties. If there were 30,000 men in the Royal
      1538
      Naval Volunteers, he thought that would be a sufficient resource on which to draw for the Navy. He believed both classes of the Reserve to be efficient men, who knew how to handle a ship, and considered that they would be most efficient in time of war; but he could not say the same of the Royal Naval Volunteers, who had not had the same practical training at sea. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had spoken in somewhat severe terms of the seamen of the Mercantile Marine. Well, it was not his duty to vindicate the character of the seamen of the Mercantile Marine; but he might remind the hon. and gallant Member that they had contributed a good deal towards the strength of this country, that they formed a very powerful body of men, and that they performed important functions, not for this country alone, but for the whole world. He did not know that it was necessary for him to say any more on this subject. Looking to the training and experience of the men of the Royal Naval Reserve, he could only add that he placed great reliance upon them, as his Predecessors had done, though he earnestly hoped they might not be called upon.
      MR. D. JENKINSbelieved that the seamen of to-day were just as competent for the duties required of them as those of 20 years ago, though, no doubt, owing to the extensive employment of steam now-a-days, they were less skilled in seamanship. As for the Royal Naval Reserve, his impression was that there were too many dockyard-men, "lumpers," and stevedores among them, and that greater care ought to be exercised in selecting them.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      GREENWICH HOSPITAL—AGE PENSIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. P. A. TAYLOR,who had the following Notice on the Paper:—To call attention to the case of certain Greenwich Pensioners, who being resident in the Colonies, their age pensions were on that account suspended from 1865 to 1876, and to move—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, residence in the Colonies should not be any disqualification for the enjoyment of Greenwich Hospital pensions, and this House is further of

      1539
      opinion that some provision should be made for paying the arrears to the men whose pensions were on this ground withheld,"
      said, he would urge the House to put a little gentle pressure upon the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, he was sure, would be glad to receive it, in order that he might give what was due to some 40 poor old fellows who had faithfully served their country. He could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Admiralty Department would not object to gentle pressure being put upon him in order that he might be the instrument of doing justice to a deserving class of men. The Admiralty excluded men who were otherwise entitled to pensions, but who were in the employment of the Government, and that exclusion afforded no ground of criticism; but what was the meaning of excluding men whose only fault—if it could be called one—was that they resided in the Colonies? They were surely, while in our Colonial Possessions, entitled to all the rights of Englishmen, and from length of service and good conduct would be awarded pensions if in this country, and therefore should receive them in the Colonies. Officers were not excluded on account of their residence in the Colonies, and he thought that no distinction should be drawn between the officers and the men in this respect. For 10 years they had from time to time brought their claims before the Admiralty; and he hoped that, being so well founded, they would be now practically recognized. He would make a very earnest appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House to grant this very reasonable request.
      CAPTAIN PRICEsupported the appeal made by the hon. Member who had just sat down on behalf of residents in the Colonies who were entitled to Greenwich pensions. On this subject he would suggest, and if he had had an opportunity would have moved—
      "That in any alterations which it may be necessary to make in the Greenwich Hospital Age Pensions, care should be taken to deal on a footing of equality with all persons who, under existing regulations would become entitled to them on reaching the required age, and who, on entering into an agreement to serve in Her Majesty's Navy for a term of years, may reasonably be expected to have made these pensions an important factor in their calculations."
      An Order in Council had been made in
      1540
      June last to the effect that, owing to the strain on the funds of Greenwich Hospital, the number and amount of the pensions granted should be reduced, and it limited the number of aged pensioners to 7,500. He had no doubt that retrenchment was necessary, but it should not be effected at the expense of a particular class. In 1865, an Act was passed providing that a certain portion of the revenues of the Hospital should be devoted to the payment of pensions to seamen of good conduct who wore 55 years of age or upwards, and had served in the Navy a certain time. Of course, the result would be an increased strain upon the funds of Greenwich Hospital; but, he argued, the Admiralty should have made this discovery before. How was it that the discovery had only now been made? How was it a gradual retrenchment was not made, beginning some time ago, and thus avoiding the drastic measure of taking away pensions altogether, and giving the benefit of Greenwich age pensions to men not so deserving of them, perhaps, as those who had been deprived of their allowances? If that was shortsighted, what could be said of the doings of the Admiralty in 1875, when the age was actually put back from 70 years to 65, thus throwing an increased strain upon the funds? He was told that one reason for something which had been done was that men who entered the Service many years ago, and who were engaged in the Russian War, were arriving at that age which enabled them to claim their pension from Greenwich Hospital. But what were the actuaries of the Admiralty about not to have been able to foresee what was going to occur? He wished to call the attention of hon. Members to the limits proposed to be fixed by the Admiralty as to the number of the Greenwich pensions, and point out that there were anomalies in the present system which he hoped would be provided for. The point he wished particularly to raise was, whether they were willing to break faith with meritorious public servants? He thought they were not. In these days men were engaged for 10 years in the Royal Navy, and at the expiration of that period they were to be invited to enter upon a further period of 10 years. Before doing so, a man naturally looked not only to the immediate pay he received, but what he would have in the

      1541
      future, how he got on in the Service, and the amount of Greenwich Hospital pension to which he would be entitled. But, under the Order in Council of which he complained, he would be debarred from that Greenwich pension. The other day he asked the question, whether the Order in Council was to apply to those who had already engaged to serve, or whether it was to apply only to future engagements? and the answer he received was that the Greenwich Hospital age pensions formed no part of the agreement under which the men served. But would it be denied that these men, who had already entered upon their second period of service, made the existence of these pensions a most important factor in their calculations? It could not be said that these men did not look so far forward as to consider the pensions, or that there was any uncertainty about them if they waited until they were the necessary age. The Government sheltered themselves under the plea that these pensions were given at the discretion of the Admiralty; but the pay and pension of every servant of the Crown was given at discretion. Again, it was said that these men were so well paid, and received such high pensions, that they ought to be in a position to make proper provision for their families in the event of their death; but there being no certainty as to the amount of pension to which they were entitled, how could they be sure about making such provision? He thought there was much ground for complaint, especially on the part of second-service men, against the present system. If he were asked to suggest what ought to be done, he would first recommend the laying down of the broad and equitable principle as an unalterable rule— that, rather than break faith with men in the Public Service in this or in any other matter, the Government should ask the House to grant a certain sum of money from the Consolidated Fund, and then make any retrenchment they pleased in the future. As a matter of fact, there had been grants to Greenwich Hospital —in 1870, of £20,000; in 1871, of £11,000; and since 1872, of £4,000 a-year. Another alternative was that the dates might be put back which would mitigate the hardship of the recent Order. A third alternative was that if the funds would not allow of 9d.
      1542
      a-day being paid to all classes, the rate should be reduced to 6d., and the reduced pensions paid to all, instead of one class being deprived of pensions. It was not wise that men should be allowed to leave the Service at the age of 38, and that thenceforth they should be kicking their heels while we did not know whether we could lay hold of them or not. The average cost of a pensioner, taking into consideration the cost of the men to be put in their places, was 4s. 9d. a-day, and the men might be induced to remain in the Service up to the age of 45, by giving them 6d. a-day extra, which would reduce the cost of a pensioner to 4s. 3d. We ought not to give more pay than it was necessary to give to procure the right article. The way to have a contented Navy was to give the men plenty of work and good food, to maintain strict discipline, and kindness; but whatever we did, we ought most scrupulously to keep faith with the men. He could not, by the Rules of the House, press his Motion now; but when the Hospital Vote came on, he should ask the House to consider whether the whole of this retrenchment ought to fall on the men, or whether any portion of it should be borne by the officers, and with that view he should move to reduce the Hospital Vote by £1,500.
      SIR MASSEY LOPESthought that the Government had already in effect done what the first part of the Resolution asked them to do. These pensions could not be claimed as a matter of right, but were given at the discretion of the Government, as was shown by the terms of the Act of 1865, which said it should be lawful for Her Majesty in Council, from time to time, by Order in Council, to give such pensions as she thought fit, and to prescribe the conditions under which they were to be enjoyed. Therefore, the Admiralty had not gone beyond their powers, and it was within their discretion to make alterations. The fact was that the amount of the pensions had enormously increased during the last three or four years. He would remind the House that in 1877, when partly by improved arrangements, and partly by the sale of an estate, the income of the Greenwich Hospital was raised by £ 14,000 a-year, the Government thought it a fitting opportunity for removing what were considered anomalies, which were that men in the Colonies

      1543
      should be deprived of pensions, or that men who were otherwise employed by the Government should lose them; and these two concessions increased the demand on the Greenwich Hospital Fund by £3,000 a-year. But when the Government were asked to pay arrears for the last 10 years, he could only say, on the part of Greenwich Hospital, that the funds would not bear it. As regarded the Hospital pensions, they were not now limited to any number of men. Formerly, the men did not exceed 5,000, and the amount expended was £48,000. But in 1874–5, the number of pensioners had increased to 5,925, and the amount expended was £56,262. In 1878–9, however, the number had increased to 7,497 men, and the amount given to them to £78,231, so that the cost in four years had been increased by £22,000; and there was reason to believe that this great increase would go on at the same rate, as, according to the present system of things, the men were obliged to leave the Service after a certain term. His hon. and gallant Friend had complained of the pensions being small; but Greenwich Hospital was a charity, and it could scarcely be said that a man with a pension of 2s. 6d. a-day was a fit object to receive its benefits. Pensions to petty officers and others which averaged from £30 to £35 a-year could not be considered as unsatisfactory; at any rate, it was more than they were entitled to under the old system. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) had laid down a rule which he thought a very good one—namely, that at least £10,000 a-year should be set aside from the income of Greenwich Hospital Estates, in order to meet an emergency, and they had endeavoured to carry out that rule; but this year they were unable to do so, the surplus being only £6,000. He could only say they very much regretted to make those alterations; at the same time, he could not think the hardship was as great as had been represented.
      MR. CHILDERSwished to say a few words on this subject, as he was principally responsible for the Act of 1865. He contended that its operation had been beneficial. The great object of it was to bring about a state of things which should make the seamen who received pensions more comfortable at the homes of their friends than they experienced at Greenwich Hospital. Hav-
      1544
      ing introduced the Act referred to, and also the Act of 1870, he had paid particular attention to the financial aspect of this question. From the first, they appropriated in pensions and on the school, the whole income of the Hospital Estates, barring a surplus of £10,000 a-year, which should be set aside for a time of war, when the strain on the Hospital funds might be very heavy indeed. But little by little there had been a tendency to bring fresh burdens on the Hospital. First, the Merchant Service had obtained grants, then the age for the higher pension had been reduced from 70 to 65, then the children of officers were supported at private establishments; and then pensioners in the Colonies were admitted to the Greenwich allowance; although, under the former system, no seaman resident in the Colonies ever dreamt of being admitted to the benefits of the Hospital. They were not, therefore, entitled to the pension which took the place of those benefits. The Government, however, had thought fit, of their great bounty, to extend that advantage to seamen in the Colonies; and, having granted that boon, there would be some difficulty in refusing the arrears. The success of the Artillery and Engineer officers in India with respect to their arrears was a precedent difficult to resist. He would, however, earnestly hope that the Admiralty would adhere to the financial scheme originally laid down.
      SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the pensioners in the Colonies had a strong claim on the Admiralty for the arrears which appeared to be due. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had done good service to these persons and to the Navy by bringing the subject before the House. With regard to the question which his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price) had brought forward, he waited with some interest the statement on the part of the Admiralty. He always understood that in consequence of the loss of the pension fund by the sale of the Estates, as there was a constant increment in their value, it had been recognized in the debates that the Consolidated Fund must be fairly chargeable for any increase of the pensions. Though the Greenwich Hospital might in days gone by have been considered as a charitable institution, yet these were pensions and not charitable

      1545
      payments. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend was perfectly justified in contending that every boy who entered the Navy for the future should be made aware that he entered it under fresh regulations, and that every person now in the Navy ought to have that which he had a fair right to expect and which he saw his comrades obtaining, unless he had been told that he was not to obtain it. Therefore, the clearest intimation ought to be given to the parents of boys entering at 14 that they were to expect a different scale of pensions. He quite agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend that whatever charge might be thrown on the Consolidated Fund faith ought to be kept with the seaman.
      MR. M'LARENsaid, he would give his earnest support to the case of his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. He contended that good faith should be kept with the sailors who had entered the Service under certain regulations.
      MR. RAMSAYhoped that the system of pensions would not give a certain number of seamen advantages over others. Any such system would prove very undesirable, and would promote ill-feeling among the men.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he cordially concurred in the observations which had fallen both from his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) and his hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Captain Price), that good faith should be kept with the sailor and the public servant, and that any sacrifice which was necessary ought to be made in order to keep good faith. He did not admit, however, that good faith had not been kept with the sailor in this case. His right hon. Friend pointed out that these Greenwich Hospital pensions were a substitute for admission into the Hospital. Every man had not a right to enter, but the men who applied were received at the discretion of the authorities of Greenwich Hospital. In lieu of that admission, the Act provided that it should be lawful for Her Majesty, "from time to time," by Order in Council, to appoint such pensions as She might think fit, &c. Now, if words meant anything, the words "from time to time" meant that the pensions granted should be, from time to time, revised by the Admiralty. The real fact was that there was a fund intrusted to the Admiralty for distribution under certain regulations which
      1546
      they were bound to lay down from time to time. Any person allowed a certain portion of that fund was entitled to it for the rest of his life; it could not be taken from him without a breach of faith. The Admiralty had recommended Her Majesty's Government to pass an Order in Council limiting the number of persons who were entited to pensions to the maximum number which had yet been reached—a course which had been proved to be necessary by the very large number of pensioners. Seeing that the fund was being drawn upon so largely, it had been thought right to limit the number to 7,500 persons. As he read the Act of Parliament, no seaman in the Navy had an actual right to any pension. A pension might be granted, and every seaman had a right to expect that the trustees of the fund would divide it properly. Who, then, were the persons entitled to pensions? A pension, it should he remembered, was not a reward for good conduct or for superior intelligence. It was a gratuity out of the funds which the nation possessed to seamen who had served their country well and who had reached an age when such a gratuity became desirable or necessary to them. Of course, no one who had not a good character could receive a pension. It might, however, be his misfortune and not his fault that he had not become a petty officer. Then came the question whether such a man might not, on the whole, be better entitled to an increase of his means of subsistence than other men who were receiving more money per week? In his judgment, the Admiralty had acted rightly, on the whole, in distributing this limited fund among a large number of men whose naval pensions were small, instead of giving it to men who were comparatively well off. He thought they were bound to distribute it to meet the necessities of the greatest number. As to the payment of arrears, that would simply be equivalent to taking the money from somebody else. His own opinion was that these men had been treated with great liberality. The pensions which now existed were a substitute for the eligibility to go into Greenwich Hospital. It was clear that a man residing at Melbourne or in New Zealand would not leave his friends and come over here in order that his claims for admission to Greenwich Hospital might be considered. Reference had been made to the heavy

      1547
      sums which the House was asked to vote annually for pensions, and he confessed that in proposing those Votes he felt a certain amount of alarm lest Parliament should say that they were becoming too onerous.

      COAL MINES — HAYDOCK COLLIERY EXPLOSION.—OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. MACDONALDrose to call attention to the evidence tendered at the inquiry into the cause of the Haydock Explosion, whereby over 190 lives were sacrificed; also to the verdict of the jury, which ran as follows:—
      "We believe there has been a fouling of air connected with an outburst, or fall of roof; but by whom the gas was ignited there is no evidence to show. The explosion was caused by a faulty ventilation, and by an accumulation of gas in goaves near Evans's Place, which has been expelled from thence by a fall of roof, assisted by other fouling which was known to exist previous to the explosion by the firemen and others;"
      and the following recommendations:—
      "There should be two firemen's reports, one for each shift, and that the ventilation should be in future carried out according to the wishes of the Government Inspectors. The lamp system is good, but requires better supervision, and especially the machine to fasten the lead rivets should not be left carelessly in the mine."
      The hon. Member said that, after the discussion on mining accidents, not long ago, he would not have claimed the attention of the House had not the question been one of a very serious character. On December 26th, 1868, an explosion occurred in Haydock Colliery by which 2G persons lost their lives. An inquest was held, and the Inspector reported in terms not very flattering to the manager. He stated that there had undoubtedly been an accumulation of gas. Now, in any well-managed colliery an accumulation of gas ought not to be allowed to exist. It was a crime to permit such accumulation. If gas was there, workmen ought not to be there. But the workmen, in this case, were allowed to go into the colliery, an explosion occurred, and 26 persons lost their lives. One would have thought that after that calamity, there would have been extra care and skill in the management of this mine; but in July, 1869, there was another explosion in it, and 59 persons lost their lives by that explosion. Within eight months an explosion occurred under nearly the
      1548
      same circumstances, the only difference being that the Inspector declared that the mine was well managed, and the manager was an "exceedingly good manager." How a destruction of 85 lives by explosion by gas could result under the management of a good manager, he was totally unable to see. He might be told that there was neglect on the part of those who were under the manager; but he had yet to learn that the owner or the manager of a mine could relieve himself from the obligation imposed on him by the Mines Inspection Act. If the manager was not aware of the accumulation of gas, his ignorance was a crime. In about nine years after the explosion last referred to, the country was startled, on the 7th of June, by that terrible explosion which took place at this mine, whereby 195 persons lost their lives. The Home Secretary sent down a legal gentleman to see that the inquiry on the subject was properly conducted. That inquiry was, he (Mr. Macdonald) thought, searching and complete. It lasted about 10 days. Nearly 200 witnesses were examined. Many witnesses told the tale of the condition of this mine. One gentleman was so irreverent as to place the accident on Him who rules the affairs of this world. But the evidence told an entirely different tale. Ho had collected statements of a few of the witnesses to show that if the mine had been worked carefully or skilfully, the manager must have known the actual condition of the mine. He was able to produce evidence from various witnesses to the effect that many of the workmen were aware for long periods before the explosion that there was an accumulation of gas in the mine. At the coroner's inquest, three witnesses appeared in connection with the management. The first, who was a foreman, stated that there was no gas in the mine; but on cross-examination he had to admit that during weeks before gas had been oozing out and showing itself in the goaf, that barriers had to be put up, and that he had never communicated these facts to the manager of the mine. Next, the certified manager stated that it was not a gassy mine; but he admitted that he had seen gas in it. Then came Mr. Chadwick, the manager, the effect of whose evidence was that the men under him were permitted to make magazines of gas which might at any moment explode and destroy the lives of

      1549
      the miners, and that they thought these things were too trifling to deserve notice. Although the Inspector of the district called it a well-managed mine, it was acknowledged that none of the discipline requisite for safety was observed. The experts ascribed the explosion to a sudden outburst of gas, but three experienced Inspectors of mines were called —Mr. J. Dickenson, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Hedley—and their testimony went to show that no sudden outburst of gas was necessary to account for the explosion, and that it had been occasioned by defective ventilation. He might be told that he ought to leave the Government to deal with that matter in its own way in consultation with their Law Officers; but if he took that course, the subject would probably lie over for another six or seven months, during which time they would, perhaps, have other calamities of the same kind occurring that would obliterate the Haydock disaster from men's minds. In 1875, 143 persons were killed near Barnsley by an explosion in a mine in which, according to the verdict of a jury, the general and special rules of the colliery had been disregarded; but nothing had been done in that case. Again, in October last, 209 persons were killed at Blantyre Colliery, and the inquiry disclosed that every rule for the good government of the mine had been neglected, that men were allowed to do what they liked, to use naked lights, and to fire shots. But the person under whose management that occurred was still manager of the mine; and so far as he knew, not one sixpence was the manager compelled to pay for the destitution he brought upon the homes of the 209 persons who were killed. No step had been taken to make anyone answer in a Court for what had happened. About 25 years ago, when two serious colliery accidents had occurred in Scotland, one through fire-damp and the other through men falling down an unprotected mine, the Procurator Fiscal of the district brought the managers of the mine before a jury at Glasgow on a charge of murder; and though the verdict was "Not proven," the practical effect was to put a stop to similar accidents. For more than 20 years they had not known a similar accident, and shaft accidents were unknown. He was confident that that would be the result whenever the owners or managers of a mine were put on their trial; and
      1550
      he could say, from what he had himself seen after the Blantyre explosion, that popular indignation demanded the trial of those whoso negligence had been culpable. If they were not to be punished, the Government ought at once to institute an order of merit for the destruction of life. These constant disasters produced a feeling of deep resentment in the mining districts, and unless Parliament took steps in the matter, it was to be feared that the miners would become so exasperated by the constant and preventable destruction of the lives of their friends and relatives that they would take the law into their own hands. He was prevented by the Rules of the House from moving the Resolution which it was his intention to have done; but he called upon the Government to institute an active system of inspection and inquiry, and to take measures that offenders against the existing mining laws should be severely punished.
      MR. BELL,who had had some considerable experience as a coal-owner, said, he had had many opportunities of judging of Inspectors of mines; and he was bound to say, as the result of his observation, that, generally speaking, no gentlemen more carefully and honestly performed their duties than those selected by the Government. It was a question, however, whether the Inspectors did not, in many instances, have too much imposed upon them. It was impossible frequently to examine sufficiently closely the various ramifications of a coal mine; but there ought to be no difficulty in determining whether or not the ventilation was defective. He had been surprised in some calculations he had made—and which had been verified—to find what immense destructive forces were contained in a few thousand feet of gas which might easily be allowed to accumulate; but which, by constant care, could easily to detected and measured. The difficulty which colliery managers had to overcome, therefore, was to introduce sufficient air into the mine to dilute all the gas in it below the exploding point. He therefore considered it erroneous on the part of the hon. Member for Stafford to deny the existence of sudden outbursts of gas. These sudden outbursts rendered it imperative on the part of coal owners to have a large excess of ventilating power, which therefore, in the ordinary conditions of the mine, gave a great margin of safety.

      1551
      He thought a different organization in the mode of inspection might produce satisfactory results in reducing the number of accidents and the consequent loss of life.
      MR. PLIMSOLLurged that many accidents arose from the ignorance of miners as to the atmospheric conditions in which they worked. Their recklessness was otherwise unaccountable. He could give instances of negligence which he had noticed on the part of workmen in several mines which he had visited in South Yorkshire. In one case, an ignorant man, who was showing a party of ladies through a mine, came upon a "blower" of gas, and having a naked light in his hand, lit the gas and produced a flame as large as the great jets of light often seen in the streets of London when a gaspipe without a tap was lighted. In each of the mines to which he referred disastrous accidents had afterwards occurred, over 200 lives being lost through one of them, and 150 lives through a second. He believed that the theory of a "sudden outburst of gas" was often made to cover cases of pure and simple negligence. Although, undoubtedly, there were sudden outbursts of gas, yet there was generally plenty of warning of such an event by the bulging of the coal; and he did not believe one-half the accidents conveniently attributed to them were actually caused by them. He believed if the Home Secretary would act on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), and prosecute and punish, in all eases of proved negligence, the parties responsible, they would soon find a largo diminution in the number of accidents.
      SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEYsaid, that the hon. Member for Stafford had pursued a somewhat inconvenient course on the present occasion. He had brought a serious charge against the owner of a particular mine in which an accident had occurred, and had read extracts from the evidence given at the Coroner's inquest. He must be aware that the subject was under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and that it would be impossible for him at present to express any opinion, either adverse or favourable. Not long ago there was an interesting discussion on this question. The hon. Member might, he thought, be content with that, as far as the general
      1552
      case was concerned; and he was hardly justified in asking the Secretary of State to give an opinion on this particular case. The debate which had taken place had been so far satisfactory that it had produced an instructive speech from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Bell) and an interesting narrative from the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). As soon as the Government heard of the accident at the Haydock Colliery, they sent down a legal gentleman to conduct the inquiry and to report to the Home Office. The hon. Member for Stafford was wrong in supposing that it was imperative upon the Home Secretary to send all Reports upon mine accidents to the Law Officers of the Crown. In this case, however, the Report of the gentleman who had been sent down to assist the Inspector, as well as the Report of the Inspector himself, had been laid before two eminent counsel, in order to ascertain whether there had been an infringement of the law, and if so, whether a prosecution could be sustained? Upon the opinion of those gentlemen being received, the Home Secretary would not be found shirking the responsibility which attached to him. No Secretary of State who ever administered the affairs of the Home Department was more ready to listen to abuses or to complaints which might be brought under his notice. He understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford to express a wish that the Government would make inquiry, and if there was negligence proved, to prosecute. The Home Secretary had always done that. Under the circumstances, he did not think the House would desire to prolong the discussion.
      MR. BELLexplained that he had expressed no opinion upon this particular explosion.
      MR. BURTthought the Under Secretary of State was scarcely justified in complaining of his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) for having brought forward this question. No doubt, it was a very inconvenient mode in which to raise the discussion, and, under ordinary circumstances, his hon. Friend would hardly be justified in taking the steps he had taken; but it ought to be borne in mind that this was the close of the Session, and there would be no other opportunity this year of calling attention to the subject. In most of the inquiries into colliery accidents,

      1553
      experts, mining engineers, and others— he would not say that they acted dishonestly—always endeavoured to show that the accident had occurred from a sudden outburst of gas; whereas, as a general rule, the facts were too patent that the mine itself had been a complete magazine of gas, the gas having been allowed to accumulate in immense quantities all over the workings. He was not at all denying that outbursts of gas did frequently occur, and he knew that a pit which might be safe at one moment might, from a sudden fall of the roof, become altogether unsafe. That was all the more likely to occur if there were not a sufficient margin of good ventilation to provide for such casualties; but while he did not at all question that these outbursts of gas did occur, he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) that such outbursts were made a sort of mask to cover general mismanagement and bad ventilation. He agreed with the Under Secretary, and was satisfied that the hon. Member for Stafford would endorse the opinion, that the present Home Secretary had shown every disposition to see the law properly enforced. But while acknowledging this, he thought that in cases like the explosions at Blantyre and Haydock, where there had been such continual mismanagement, or, at any rate, very bad ventilation and laxity of discipline, it would have a good effect if the certificates of the managers were suspended. It would even be better to take a stronger step in cases where gross mismanagement occurred, by providing that those who were guilty of such mismanagement should be tried for manslaughter.
      MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that when he saw the Motion on the Paper, he thought it right to acquaint the hon. Member for Stafford with the fact that it was absolutely impossible for him to express any opinion upon the question at the present moment. The Report of the inquiry had only been for a few days in his hands, and he had thought the best course he could take under the circumstances was that which he had very often adopted before—namely, to ask for the advice of gentlemen of eminence in the Legal Profession, and to ascertain whether any offence had been committed against the law; and, if so, whether there was reasonable evidence on which
      1554
      to institute a prosecution. It would then rest entirely with the Secretary of State whether there should be a prosecution or not. He did not intend to shirk any of the responsibility; but he was quite sure hon. Members would agree that the first step was to get the best advice, and to find out whether there had been an offence against the law or not. There was one observation which he wished to make. He desired to have it fully known all over the country that the Government intended to place the managers of collieries on precisely the same footing as the captains of vessels. Everyone knew, as a matter of fact, that the Board of Trade frequently instituted an inquiry as to whether the captain of a vessel should not be deprived of his certificate on account of proved incapacity or negligence. What he wanted to show clearly, not only for his own guidance, but for the guidance of those who came after him, was that under the Mines Regulation Act, those who held certificates as managers of mines were to be dealt with precisely in the same manner as those who held certificates of competency as commanders of vessels. Most persons looked upon that section of the Act of Parliament as a dead letter; but he wished to prove that it was a living reality. If there was proved incapacity or negligence, there was no right to endanger the lives of the workers in a mine by continuing a certificate. The question of ventilation was another matter which must be inquired into, quite irrespective of whether a prosecution was to take place or not; and in this case there must also be an inquiry whether the Inspector ought to have found out before the explosion whether the ventilation of the mine was defective. That question must be carefully considered, although he had no wish, at the present moment, to attach the smallest blame to the Inspector, as he had formed no opinion one way or the other. It was undoubtedly, however, a question that this, and all other cases, ought to receive careful consideration from the Secretary of State for the time being. He would only add that in every case where negligence was proved, it was his intention, whether the offenders were high or low, to put the law in motion.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERthought it was evident, from the history of the Haydock explosion, that there had been

      1555
      an accumulation of gas in the mine. The question, therefore, to determine was whether the inspection which failed to detect the accumulation was effective or not, and what steps were taken to secure a proper inspection. He was of opinion that until they fixed the responsibility upon those who were responsible for the management of the mines, they would make no effectual provision against the repetition of these terrible disasters.
      MR. ASSHETON CROSSreferred the hon. Member, as an answer to his remarks, to the Instructions which had been issued to the Inspectors of Mines during the last 12 months.
      MR. BELLremarked, that the Inspectors were fully worked, and that what was required was an additional staff, if more efficient inspection were required.
      MR. MACDONALDpointed out that in most of the previous accidents it was declared on inquiry that the cause of the explosion was bad ventilation.

    THE EASTERN QUESTION — THE ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION.

      OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. FAWCETTsaid, he had placed a Motion on the Paper to the effect that, considering it was stipulated by the Anglo-Turkish Convention that reforms, to be agreed upon later between the two Powers, should be introduced into the government, and for the protection of the Christian and other subjects of the Porte in Asiatic Turkey, the House was of opinion that before such Agreement was finally concluded, Parliament should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on these reforms, and on the guarantees to be provided for their execution. Though he was precluded by the Forms of the House from moving his Resolution, as one Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair had been already negatived, he was very anxious to state some reasons that might be urged in justification of it, and he still hoped that he would receive from the Government an assurance which would render it unnecessary if he had had the opportunity of taking the sense of the House upon it. He stated the other day that nothing could be further from his intention or desire than to revive the discus-
      1556
      sion which took place in the protracted debate last week, and to that promise he should now most rigorously and scrupulously adhere. The past had been sufficiently complained of, and his observations should now be directed to the future. A misapprehension prevailed in certain quarters that in bringing forward this Motion, he desired to make a complaint against the Government, because they were not ready to state to the House the reforms which they thought should be introduced into Asiatic Turkey, and also the guarantees which, in their opinion, would be necessary for the execution of those reforms. Nothing would be more unjust and contrary to common sense than to make such a complaint against the Government. He was willing to leave it to their discretion as to the time when they should make a statement respecting those reforms and guarantees. All he asked was that whenever the time arrived, the English people, through the House of Commons, should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the subject. He had heard the remark repeated since the debate of last week—"What is the use of talking any more about this question? The Government are supported by an overwhelming majority, and there is no good in crying over the past." But it was a mistake to suppose that everything connected with the Anglo-Turkish Convention had been concluded. A sort of partnership had been entered into, Taut the terms of it were left to be determined in the future. The Anglo-Turkish Convention stated that the Sultan promised England to introduce reforms, to be agreed upon later between the two Powers, in the government and for the protection of the Christian and other subjects of the Porte in Asiatic Turkey. The whole of that language showed that the Convention was prospective so far as the reforms were concerned, and surely it was not an unreasonable proposal that the Parliament of England should have some voice in determining their adequacy or inadequacy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers had repeated the determination of the Government that this Convention should not be a sham, but a reality. It was their avowed intention, not simply to protect English interests in the East, but to introduce

      1557
      good government for these unfortunate people in Asiatic Turkey, in place of misgovernment. So far as the Government effected that object, they would find in him a willing and humble supporter. Referring to one of the Blue Books on Turkey, issued last year, he found there the declared and emphatic opinion of the Government on this subject. It was to the effect that the whole history of the Ottoman Empire, since it had been admitted into the European concert by the Treaty of Paris in 1856, showed that the Porte was powerless to guarantee the execution of reforms in its Provinces by Turkish officials, who accepted them with reluctance and neglected them with impunity. If that was the settled opinion of the Government 18 months ago, what had happened since to give them any greater confidence in the ability of the Porte to guarantee the execution of reforms? The conclusion at which he arrived was that one might as well whistle to the wind or talk to the tide as to attempt to reform the Government of Turkey, unless guarantees were provided outside of Turkey. In a remarkable despatch of January, 1877, Lord Salisbury said that the happiness of the people in the Turkish Provinces absolutely depended on the personal fitness of their local governors; that the system of Turkish government, as recently administered, gave little chance of securing the personal fitness of local governors in an emergency; and that capable men might occasionally be appointed; but it almost invariably happened that favouritism and corruption wore the means for securing patronage. The noble Lord then went on to observe that if, by chance, a capable man should be appointed, he was certain to be removed, unless he was willing to pay a higher bribe for his continuance in office than the bribe offered from head-quarters for his removal. It was, said the noble Lord, perfectly vain to expect any improvement in the condition of these Provinces, unless you removed these abuses, and obtained some guarantees as to the character of the local Governors. Winding up with a significant and important sentence, the noble Lord stated that it was absolutely hopeless to expect to find any remedy for these abuses which was not external to the Turkish Government.
      1558
      After that despatch from one of Her Majesty's Ministers, it might fairly be put to the Government—"If you mean to be satisfied with reforms without outside guarantees, there never was such an idle sham or mockery as this Anglo-Turkish Convention, so far as it can secure better government for Turkey." They were thus brought face to face with this dilemma, from which they could not escape. If they wished to give reality to these reforms, they must be prepared to apply external pressure on the Porte; or, in other words, to adopt a policy of coercion, heard of so much last year. His contention was that the Government ought not to adopt such a policy, without the people of this country having an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon it. Would the Government be able to displace local Governors, appointed under a system of corrupt favouritism, without such officials struggling to maintain their privileges? Was England prepared to incur the responsibility of sanctioning domestic slavery, which was engrained into social life in Asiatic Turkey? By the 61st Article of the Treaty of Berlin, Europe, and not England alone, made itself responsible, in a certain way, for the good government of a great part of Asiatic Turkey—Armenia. That Treaty specially guaranteed the Sultan against the raids of Kurds and Circassians, and in return the Sultan promised to introduce reforms, the carrying out of which Europe promised to superintend. But, by an Act subsequently made known, the English Government separated themselves from the rest of Europe, and made themselves responsible for good government in Asia Minor. It seemed to him that if we were going to undertake a work which might be as great in its proportions as administering another India, the people of this country had at least the right, before the terms on which that work should be undertaken were finally decided, to have an opportunity of expressing an opinion, not only on what was going to be done, but on the manner in which it ought to be done. The people had also a right to demand an opportunity of seeing whether the reforms, finally agreed upon between England and Turkey separately, would work harmoniously with that understanding arrived at by all Europe to

      1559
      guarantee reforms as far as Armenia was concerned. Ho had kept his promise of not making any reference to the past, and he had confined his remarks entirely to the future; but he thought that, now peace had been concluded, and there being no longer any cause for further secrecy, it was a most reasonable request that the Government should take Parliament into confidence before it resolved to enter upon an act which might vitally affect the future of this country. The Privileges of Parliament were at stake on this question; for did not its control over expenditure become simply a farce when it was called upon to vote money and deprived of any power of controlling the causes which rendered the expenditure of money necessary? He therefore appealed to the Government to return to the good old practice of taking the House into their counsels, and to undertake that they would not enter into engagements which would throw upon Parliament and the country great responsibilities, without first having obtained their sanction and approval.
      MR. E. JENKINSwould venture to address a few words to the House in the same spirit which had animated his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney. He admitted that last week an amnesty had been granted to the Government for all past offences, and their policy must now be taken to be accepted by the House and adopted by the country; but Parliament was now all the more entitled to call on the Government to explain the manner in which they proposed to carry out that policy. He complained that there had been a misunderstanding out-of-doors as to the object of those who in the House asked for information from the Government on this subject. They did not want the Government to lay the complete scheme before the House; but they were anxious to know exactly to what extent the Government had pledged this country in regard to the good government of so enormous a country. It was not fair to charge those who chose to criticize the manner in which the Government had carried out what they called their Imperial policy with a connection with the Manchester school of politicians, which was just now in deserved disgrace. The Convention itself was also thoroughly misunderstood in the country. It was over-estimated. A
      1560
      constituent of his had written to him describing the occupation of Cyprus as one of the grandest events in Lord Beaconsfield's career; but, so far from it being a grand event, in the sense of a great Imperial annexation, it was nothing of the kind; and it was a thing full of nothing but danger, obligation, and expense. If the language, as set forth in one of the despatches of Lord Salisbury to Sir Austen Layard, suggesting the Convention, really meant anything, it was that it was in the contemplation of the Government to supply the Sublime Porte with that force which it did not itself possess. The noble Lord pointed out that the Ottoman Government was incapable of enforcing in Turkey that organization which was essential to the stability of the Government of the country, and that an external force should come in and guarantee that stability. Therefore, he (Mr. E. Jenkins) must ask, what did the Government mean to do? It would seem that their design was not only to introduce external force, but that the exercise of it was to preserve the power of Ottoman rule in Turkey. But what a useless and untrustworthy guarantee that would be! As the matter stood at that moment, he would ask whether the Government had any idea of supplying that external force, and through the medium of Ottoman organization? He was willing to consider first the scheme of the Government in reference to Turkey in Asia, and they were entitled to criticize it. They found that the Convention did express, in a loose way, that scheme, and, therefore, he must ask the Government how they proposed to carry it out, and, first, to what extent had they pledged the resources of this country? The Government had stated that they had not added to our responsibilities in the least; but when they read the terms of these despatches, how could the House reconcile the one with the other. He would not ask the Government to go into the details of the scheme, but to give the House some notion of the principles of the policy which they proposed to carry out. The only thing which they knew at present was that the Government had Undertaken the duty of fighting Russia when she next invaded Turkey. Did not that involve an enormous obligation? The Government ought to explain what they meant to do. He would refer

      1561
      to the Reports of Sir William Barron and Mr. Rumbold, to show that the financial condition of Turkey was frightful; there was absolute chaos in the administration. In a country of 660,000 square miles, and with 6,050,000 inhabitants in 1867–8, the whole amount collected in tithe—the principal source of revenue—was 1s. 5½d. per head. All the schemes for reforming the system of collecting the tithes had utterly failed, and no means had been devised for superseding the old method of farming the revenues. This system enabled the farmers of the tithe to oppress the people by demanding the payment of increased amounts, and it was well known that a system of absolute corruption existed throughout the country. "Were the Government going to introduce a new system, or to compel the Sublime Porte to make reforms, not only in regard to taxation, but in the administration of justice, upon which the future welfare of the country would depend? Did the Government intend to undertake the administration of a bankrupt country, and to enforce the carrying out of reforms; or had they simply entered into a paper contract for the effecting of reforms which the Porte never intended to carry out? That was a question which might fairly be asked of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who ought to state frankly what were the intentions of the Government.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot wonder at the anxiety which all hon. Members of this House must feel as to the position in which we stand in regard to the Anglo-Turkish Convention and the agreements into which we have entered on a very important and difficult question. I should be the last person to complain of either of the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed us to-night for expressing their opinions on the subject. At the same time, I am bound to say that during the whole of their addresses, and especially that of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), I could not help asking myself, cui bono this discussion at the present moment? Our position, I think, is a tolerably intelligible one, and I must say I had some difficulty in understanding the precise questions which the hon. Member for Dundee wished to put. He has raised a great many difficulties, and has stated with great truth a number
      1562
      of the obstacles inseparable from any attempt to improve the administration of any portion of the Turkish Empire— I have not a word to say against his description of the innate difficulties with which we have to contend. And when it was asked how this and that is to be done, and when it was argued that the task is impossible, I think that the hon. Member is conceivably right, and that the task may, after all, prove above our strength; but, at any rate, the possibility of its accomplishment is not advanced by a discussion on details such as the hon. Member has mentioned. We have entered into a perfectly intelligible agreement, and we have undertaken certain obligations towards Turkey in respect of her defence of her Asiatic Provinces from future attacks by Russia, and as the consideration or complement of that undertaking, Turkey has promised to enter into an agreement with us as to the carrying out of certain reforms. That Agreement of itself shows that these reforms will require very great care, and they will have to be elaborately discussed between the two Powers; but there is no good in the world in beginning by saying they are things that cannot be done. The arguments of the hon. Member, that particular reforms can never be effected, reminds me of the old puzzle of Achilles and the Tortoise, in which it was proved that, under certain conditions, Achilles would never overtake the Tortoise; the answer to such a contention was solvitur ambulando; the result will expose the hon. Member's fallacy. We have hope of a certain amount of success; and we are already in communication with the Porte in regard to various points of detail which are well understood, and have already been the subject of a good deal of examination in the Congress, in the Andrassy Note, and in other ways. What we hope to do is to induce the Porte to enter into an agreement to effect such reforms as we can persuade them is desirable; and they will give specific guarantees for the carrying out of those reforms. To say that by any possible reforms we could at once put the Turkish Empire into the position of countries like Prance or Germany would, of course, be absurd. What we hope to do, and what there is a probability of our doing, is to materially improve the administration of those Provinces in cer-

      1563
      tain particulars which are of a vital character. There are, in particular, three great departments to which we intend to direct our attention — the revenue, the judicial system, and the police. Our object will be to bring about practical improvements which will be guaranteed by treaty, and not by a mere general promise. I do not think we can do more; and I do not think anyone has a right to blame us because now, within a month of the signing of the Treaty, we are not able to come down and put a cut-and-dried scheme on the Table.
      MR. FAWCETTsaid, he certainly did not expect them to do that.
      Mr. E. JENKINSsaid, he had distinctly stated that they could not expect a cut-and-dried scheme. What he wanted to know was whether they were simply relying on the promise of the Porte in this matter?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is just the point. It is on the face of the Agreement that the reforms are to be specified and guarantees given. But the precise details of those guarantees it is impossible for the Government at this moment to state, unless, indeed, we intended to make the undertaking a sham one; for in that case it would be the simplest thing in the world to say that this or that was the way in which we intended to administer the Turkish Empire. We mean business. We mean to endeavour to bring about specific reforms, and they will be made the subject of a specific agreement, which could not be conducted and brought about without communication and correspondence, which must take time. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), I understand, admits the general principle that the matter is one which must be deliberately and seriously looked into; that it cannot be disposed of in a moment; and that he is not disposed to put merely captious questions or to raise captious objections; but he wants to know whether we are going to give fresh guarantees, and whether we will undertake that no agreement shall be made without this House being consulted? Well, I would be sorry to give any pledge of that kind. We have no motive to maintain any secrecy, or show any want of confidence towards the House; but, on the other hand, it is important that we should proceed with
      1564
      our negotiations and arrangements as quickly as may be, and that we should not have to delay their conclusion in order to wait for a discussion in Parliament. I think the hon. Gentleman himself will see that a discussion in Parliament might possibly prevent the conclusion of really good arrangements, such as the House would like to see concluded. In this country we are in the habit of discussing matters freely, and as if entirely English interests were concerned, and it can hardly be otherwise than that expressions should be used and criticism passed which might cause embarrassment, and might prevent us coming to any proper understanding. Of course, we do not intend to pledge the House or the country to anything in the nature of expenditure of money without the concurrence of Parliament; but supposing we come to some arrangement with the Porte, say as to the mode in which her functionaries shall be appointed or the revenues administered, to delay that until the terms could be discussed by Parliament would, I think, be unwise. At the same time, we are glad of all the counsel we can got. We do not at all underrate the difficulties we have to contend with; in fact, it is because we know they are great, and because we are anxious to overcome them, that we ask the confidence of Parliament in our endeavour to carry out the Agreement.

    NAVY—H.M.S. "EURYDICE."

      OBSERVATIONS.
      MR. D. JENKINS,in rising to call attention to the circumstances attending the loss of Her Majesty's Ship Eurydice, said, that he believed the catastrophe was due to either want of skill or want of foresight on the part of some one or another. From all the information he had obtained, he had come to the conclusion that the ship did not possess that stability to enable her to encounter the heavy weather which one of Her Majesty's vessels ought to possess. He did not mean to say that the vessel was unseaworthy; but he had been informed that some nautical men who saw her at Stornoway noticed that she was very crank, and predicted that if she encountered heavy weather the result would be disastrous. At the time of the catastrophe, the Eurydice did not appear to be

      1565
      carrying any extraordinary press of canvas. It was said that she was struck by a sudden squall, which allowed no time for shortening sail; but other ships in close proximity outrode it. Seamen who were accustomed to the English Channel knew perfectly well that the most dangerous wind was N., and the closer in the more suddenly came these squalls. He had it from the captain of a ship which was three or four miles farther out, and saw Her Majesty's Ship enter the snowstorm; had seen the clouds, and shortened sail. His vessel was one of l,000 tons with 19 hands only. Now, what were the facts? The Eurydice had 30 tons of permanent ballast, and she depended, to a large extent, on consumable stores for her stability—in other words, her safety. He should like to know what was the weight of water ballast in tanks that she carried; but whatever that might be, he could not believe that those tanks as they were emptied of fresh water were refilled for the purpose of ballast with salt water. The two seamen who were saved said in their evidence that they perceived the ship became more lively, or, in other words, less safe. He could not for a moment believe that a seaman of such experience and ability as Captain Hare could have been upon deck at the time. He found, on referring to the list of casualties to Her Majesty's ships, that when accidents occurred they were generally in charge of junior officers, whose experience was insufficient to enable them to act with decision and promptitude. Junior officers should have a previous training by intrusting them with small independent commands—as, for instance, gunboats— before they were allowed to take posts of responsibility on board larger vessels. There was a strong feeling extant that this ship had not had fair play—that she had been sacrificed by neglect— and that she was not, when sent to sea, properly ballasted. He trusted that the Admiralty would be able to prove that everything was done that could be done to insure the safety of the vessel before she left for her last cruise, and that her loss was attributable to a peril of the sea—which certainly was to him a complete mystery.
      COLONEL BERESFORDthought that the conclusion the hon. Member had come to was entirely erroneous. The
      1566
      vessel had been lost, not because she had not sufficient ballast, but because, when the squall struck her, she was under full sail, which caused her to lean over, and as her ports were open the water rushed in and overwhelmed her. That was the explanation of the accident which an old sailor who witnessed the occurrence had given him.
      MR. MUNTZexpressed his opinion that if the officer in command had looked at the barometer, he must have seen that a squall was approaching.
      MR. A. F. EGERTONexpressed the deep regret which the Admiralty, in common with the whole country, felt at the loss of the Eurydice. He regretted very much that the hon. Member had thought it necessary to call attention at the present time to the disaster, as within a very few days the whole matter would be most fully investigated by a court martial, and every detail that could be ascertained in connection with the loss of the vessel placed upon record. He objected very strongly to the manner in which the hon. Member had criticized the conduct of the Dockyard officials. The Eurydice was as carefully prepared for the service in which she was sent as any vessel ever fitted out in a Royal Dockyard; and as far as anyone could state, she was a perfectly sound vessel. The vessel was known to be rather a crank ship, but was not supposed to be unsafe. He believed that the weight of her water tanks was 120 tons, and she carried, in addition, 30 tons of ballast. That was the weight of ballast she had had upon all her previous cruises, and he believed there was no foundation for a statement which he had heard made that she was overmasted. There was no doubt she was perfectly fit for service. All her officers were most carefully selected, from her captain, Captain Hare downward, and they were all men of considerable experience. It was the wish of the Admiralty, so far as possible, to intrust junior lieutenants with the command of gun-boats and small craft of that kind, and everything was done that could be done to teach them seamanship. He had only to add that, from a telegram which had just been received, the Eurydice was now in 11 feet of water, and the Admiral Superintendent hoped to have her pumped out to-morrow; so that in a very short time she would be in harbour, and then the

      1567
      investigation to which he had referred would be made, and until that was done he deprecated any blame being attributed to any officer or man on board the vessel when she sank.
      Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

      SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
      SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought this would be a convenient opportunity for stating, as far as the Navy was concerned, what changes had taken place in the programme during the four months which had elapsed since he made his Statement in March last. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that application was made to Parliament for a large sum of money, and that of that sum £1,500,000 was to be spent in the purchase of ships. As no Statement had been made to the House as to the results of that purchase, or the application of the money which was to be used for the purpose, he proposed to state to the Committee precisely how the money had been applied so far as shipping was concerned." The sum of £1,434,070 had been expended out of the Vote of Credit in the purchase of iron-clad ships. The ships purchased were the Neptune, formerly the Independencia, the Superb, the Belleisle, and the Orion. Of these, the first three were completed, so far as the owners were concerned, and this last— the Orion—was building on the Thames at the time she was purchased, and the amount which had been spent upon her was only partially paid out of the Vote of Credit. The sum paid for the Neptune-was £614,350; for the Superb, £452,895; for the Belleisle,, £240,000; and for the Orion, as far as she had been built, £126,825. In addition to these iron-clad ships, there were also purchased two ships—the Tyne, late the Mareotis, of 2,020 tons gross register, as a transport vessel; and the British Umpire, estimated at 3,400 tons, as a transport, but more particularly "as a typical armed cruiser for the protection of commerce and torpedo depot. For this latter vessel £79,000 was paid out of the Vote of Credit, and £16,000 fall
      1568
      on the Estimates of the year. The total sum paid out of the Vote of Credit for shipbuilding was, in round figures, £1,600,000—that was, £1,445,000 for the Neptune, Belleisle, Superb, and Orion, and 10 small craft for torpedo service, and about £140,000 for the other two ships. The result was that 14,608 tons of iron-clads, and 4,839 tons of unarmoured ships, being a total of 19,447 tons, were added to the Fleet under the Vote of Credit. In the Statement which he made in March last he said that the tonnage which was expected to be built up to the 31st March, 1878, was 15,598 tons; but the actual result, as shown by Parliamentary Return No. 245, was the completion of 16,563 tons, being an addition of nearly 1,000 tons to the amount which the Admiralty expected to build. That result was due to the increased number of hands employed in the Dockyards and to overtime. The gross result, therefore, of the shipbuilding in the Dockyards for the year ending 31st March last, and the purchases under the Vote of Credit was an addition to the Navy of 21,721 tons of iron-clads, and 14,289 tons of unarmoured vessels, making a total for the year of 36,010 tons. He felt that the addition of so large an amount of tonnage out of the Vote of Credit justified him in re-considering the programme he had laid down. The addition under the Vote of Credit was practically the amount of shipbuilding which could ordinarily be attained in one year. Few Administrations had been successful in adding more than 20,000 tons in all, and certainly not more than 14,000 tons, of armour-clad ships in any one year; and he might therefore state with some confidence that the effect of the special Expenditure of the year had been to add to the Navy one year's shipbuilding. And, moreover, this had been accomplished within the year. Ships which would take three or four years to build had been added to the Navy in a state ready for sea; or, at least, as forward as they would be if they had been launched from Her Majesty's Dockyards, after being three or four years under construction. He stated in March last that it was proposed to build four iron-clads, and he indicated to the House in a general way what they would be; but stated, at the same time, that at a later period he proposed to give more detailed information on the subject. He

      1569
      had come to the conclusion that it was reasonable to lay down three iron-clads instead of four in the present year, with a view to economy in the use of the resources they had, and still more with a view to the maintenance of the ships which existed in a perfectly complete state; so that as soon as any ship was brought to the Dockyard, and was worth repairing, it could be put into a proper condition both as regarded the hull and machinery. They proposed, therefore, instead of laying down four ironclads, to lay down three, and they would be of a type which he would now venture to describe. Two of them would be improved Agamemnons. Those hon. Members who took an interest in shipbuilding would understand it better if he described it as a type of the ship known to them. The Inflexible was now nearly complete, or would be so, he hoped, in the course of the current financial year; but the Ajax and the Agamemnon were not so far advanced, although great progress had been made with them. They would not, however, be completed within the year. It was proposed that two ships of the Agamemnon class should be laid down, and that they should be armed with guns of about the same weight as those of the Dreadnought— namely, about 38 tons, mounted in two turrets. Those guns, and the citadel within which they worked, would be protected by the same armour as the Ajax and the Agamemnon—that was, a maximum of 18 inches—the maximum of the Dreadnought being 14 inches. The engine power would not exceed that of the Ajax and the Agamemnon, but would be capable of producing a speed of 14 knots, or one knot higher than the Agamemnon class would have, by increasing the length of the ship to equal that of the Dreadnought and the Inflexible, and suitably arranging the form. The machinery, and all the vital parts of the ship, would be protected either by horizontal or by vertical armour. The ships would be capable of ejecting torpedoes below the water or from behind armour, and of being employed as rams. They would be much smaller and less costly than the Dreadnought and Inflexible, as the displacement tonnage would be about 9,000 tons; while the Dreadnought was a little under, and the Inflexible over, 11,000 tons, and the Ajax and Agamemnon were
      1570
      about 8,500. The principal alteration in the case of these new ships would be that they would have a larger supply of coal, be able to keep the sea for a longer period, and would have greater speed; but, in other respects, they would be very similar to the Ajax and the Agamemnon. The third ship which it was proposed to lay down was intended to be an improved Rupert. Hon. and gallant Members who were acquainted with the Rupert had a very high opinion of her. Naval officers had described her as being a very handy and convenient vessel. It was proposed to build another vessel of the same class, with more powerful guns in her single turret—namely, guns of 38 tons instead of 18 tons. It was proposed to construct the hull of steel, and it was hoped that the experiments which had been made with steel armour would justify its use for the armour of that ship, and also the new Agamemnon, so that the advantage of great resistance to penetration might be secured without cracking. He was bound to say that up to the present time they had not been successful in obtaining a steel plate which had altogether answered the expectations they had formed; but he had great hopes that the ingenuity, the skill, and the determined perseverance of the manufacturers of steel plates would ultimately produce plates capable of resisting a blow without cracking. If they could do that, they would obtain a very valuable result indeed, and he hoped that they would be successful in obtaining these plates before the vessels were ready to receive them. There was no doubt about the power of a steel plate to resist shot, and that, in this respect, it was of much greater importance and value than an iron plate. It was perfectly certain that if a shot went through the iron plate into the citadel it would disable the ship, while if a shot was stopped by the steel plate, even although the steel plate cracked, those who were in the citadel would be safe, and the ship would be manageable and capable of keeping the sea. But he and those who advised him wished to reserve their judgment on this question. They had, however, reason to believe that from the advance which had been made in the manufacture of these plates, they might produce plates within a period in which these ships

      1571
      would be ready to receive them, which would offer a very much greater resistance to shot than iron, and make the ships very much more invulnerable than 18 inches of iron had done. He would now explain to the Committee what it was proposed to do during the coming year. In the programme which he presented to the House in March last, he stated that he hoped they would complete 9,831 tons of iron-clads in the Dockyards, and 1,717 tons by contract; 3,737 tons of unarmoured ships in the Dockyards, and 2,982 tons by contract, making a total of 11,548 tons of iron-clads, and 6,719 tons of unarmoured ships, or a gross of 18,267 tons of shipping as the product of the year. The alteration of the programme, as he had already stated to the Committee, had to some extent altered the whole of those figures. They had made the commencement of three iron-clads, and abandoned one. In the place of the one which had been abandoned they proposed to build an unarmoured ship, the design of which had not been absolutely fixed; but it would be something between the Iris and the Boadicea. The result would be that they would complete 8,578 tons of iron-clads in the Dockyards, 1,717 tons by contract, and 4,830 tons of unarmoured ships in the Dockyards, and 2,982 tons by contract; making a total of 18,107 tons. They had further completed the ships which had been mentioned as having been bought by the Vote of Credit, to the extent of 1,661 tons, being a total of 19,768 tons of shipping commenced, advanced or completed during the year, as against the gross total of 18,267 tons, which he stated in March last, the alteration being that they had substituted an unarmoured for an armoured ship. He thought he ought also to state to the Committee some of the other modes in which the Vote of Credit had been expended. His hon. and gallant Friend on his right (Captain Pim) had stated in the early part of the evening that he had no confidence in merchant ships, as ships capable of being adapted for purposes of war. Well, the Admiralty were going to try whether a merchant ship could be made useful as a ship of war; and one of the first purchases under this Vote of Credit was the purchase of a merchant ship, the Hecla; which would,
      1572
      in the first instance, be fitted as a cruiser with guns—a typical merchant ship, with small engine power, large stowage, and great conveniences in other respects. He thought it was probable that the ship would be a success in that capacity; but even if she were not, she would become a most valuable transport, and an economical ship for that purpose. But he should state to the Committee that he had thought it his duty during the period through which we had passed to provide guns, magazines, and all the fittings which were necessary for 30 fast merchant steamers in case they were adapted for cruisers. They had all been surveyed, and we could within three weeks of the present time, if it became necessary, send these ships to sea armed and equipped in all respects as fast cruisers. They would be armed with six guns on the average. The guns were in store, the fittings were in store, the magazines were prepared, everything was ready to be put on board, and even the crews were told off. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: What kind of guns?] They were long range 64-lb. guns. Even the gunners to man these ships were all ready in case it should be necessary to employ them. He could only express his very great satisfaction—a satisfaction in which the Committee would share— that it had not been necessary to employ these ships at all; but there had not been a single shilling wasted in the preparations that were made. All the stores were in hand, and would be available either for the purposes of the Navy, or for this particular purpose, if at any time it should become necessary to make use of them. In the arrangements which had been provided for, no single ship had been diverted from the traffic and trade in which she was engaged; but we could within a very short time have laid our hands upon them, and thus we should have had a very large fleet which could have been increased without much difficulty or loss of time, and which would have been capable of clearing the seas of any ships of their class with which they might come in contact. [Captain PIM: How many?] Thirty. He thought he had now stated to the Committee how the programme of the year had been affected by the Vote of Credit. He had also stated what ships had been purchased under the

      1573
      Vote of Credit; but he would reepat the statement now because these facts were rather apt to be forgotten. There were four iron-clads, three of which were completed—as far as they would be completed if launched in Her Majesty's Dockyards; but requiring, of course, a good deal of alteration in the hands of the Admiralty. One of them—the Belleisle—was in the Reserve Fleet; the Neptune was being got ready for sea at Portsmouth; the Superb was being got ready at Chatham; and the Orion was being completed in the Thames. The Admiralty had purchased the Hecla, a typical armed merchant steamer, which would also be used as a torpedo depot. She would carry torpedo boats at her davits, have sub-marine mining stores on board, and would be armed with four or five guns. He had already mentioned her tonnage. She was built by the builders of the White Star Line of ships, and if she were not retained as a torpedo vessel, she would become a very useful and economical transport. The effect of the Supplementary Estimates now before the Committee had been to employ in the Dockyard a number of men, which, spread over the whole year, amounted to 17,565 men, as against 16,111 men originally contemplated. The result of the employment of these men had been the bringing forward ships for commission, the increase in the tonnage which he had stated, and the very large amount of additional labour in the Dockyards, which the events of the last six months had required. He thought that at that late period of the evening it would be hardly desirable that he should go into further particulars; but the Committee were aware that very considerable expenditure had been incurred for torpedo boats out of the Estimates of the year. As many as 81 torpedo boats had been acquired. These boats had been constructed by various builders, for he thought it his duty to endeavour to find as many builders as possible who were capable of producing these boats, so that, in case of emergency, we should be able to fall back upon a number of persons to supply them at short notice. The sum of £140,240 had been expended on first-class torpedo boats, 32 in number, and £80,000 on what he should call second-class torpedo boats, of which there were 81; so that they had acquired
      1574
      113 of these torpedo boats at a cost of about £220,000. Other ships had been advanced, but the new ships had been delayed. It was intended to have built 3,273 tons of new armoured ships this year; but the delay which had taken place, and the postponement of one ironclad had resulted in this—that only 1,176 tons of new ships would be built this year. That falling-off, however, was more than compensated by the advancement of the Inflexible, the Ajax, the Agamemnon, and other armour-plated ships; so that instead of any deficiency in the shipbuilding programme, they should have a greater quantity of shipbuilding than that previously contemplated—that was to say, instead of building on the whole 18,267 tons in the year, they should build 19,768 tons.
      (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £1,350,140, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Dockyards and Naval Yards at Homo and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879."
      MR. RYLANDSsaid, that when the Navy Estimates were before the House, now several months ago, a discussion took place in connection with the first Vote in reference to the Inflexible, and very grave doubts were expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House as to the wisdom of the construction of further vessels of the same type as the Inflexible. In consequence of that discussion, and in consequence also, he was bound to say, of the First Lord of the Admiralty not being able to reply satisfactorily to the grave criticisms which had been advanced in the House with regard to the Inflexible, an undertaking was, as he understood, given by the right hon. Gentleman that before Votes 6 and 10 were taken, there would be a further explanation as to certain modifications of the Inflexible type, which were to be carried out in the Ajax and the Agamemnon. He saw that the First Lord shook his head, but if he was wrong in supposing that any undertaking was given, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would now give the Committee the information which he had understood was promised. It was perfectly well known that the perusal

      1575
      of the evidence given before the Commission and of their Report left upon the minds of many hon. Members, and of many persons outside that House, very serious doubts as to the satisfactory character of the Inflexible. He certainly understood from the First Lord of the Admiralty that if the Votes were passed on that occasion, the Government would take care that Votes 6 and 10 were brought under the notice of the House at a time when this discussion could be continued before they proceeded to vote large sums of money for the completion of the Ajax and the Agamemnon. Well, now, in what position did they find themselves? The discussion to which he had alluded took place on the 15th of March, and from that time until the present moment, two of the most important Votes in connection with the Navy Estimates had been allowed to slumber. He thought they had very good reason to complain of the conduct of the Government in this matter. He did not know that he could blame the First Lord of the Admiralty, because he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman had his own way, he would have been glad to have brought these Votes before the Committee at an earlier period of the Session. But still they were placed in this position—that they were called upon to pass two Votes, amounting altogether to an expenditure of £3,600,000, at the very close, almost, of the Session, when it was utterly impossible for the Committee to discuss the questions involved with any prospect of a satisfactory result. They were asked to vote these large sums of money practically without any consideration. In the circumstances in which the Committee were placed, he did not intend to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. His object in putting that Amendment down upon the Paper was, when these Votes came, to secure a discussion of the serious question as to how far it was advisable for the Government to continue to build enormous vessels of questionable construction involving a great outlay of money, and in respect of which very serious doubts were entertained by competent authorities. He complained that not only the present Board of Admiralty, but former Boards, acting under the advice of their Chief Con-
      1576
      structor, or of some other person, had proceeded to build three or four vessels of a certain type without taking any opportunity of testing the type of vessel to see whether it was good or not. The result had been that vessels had been put upon the stocks, and pushed forward, of a type about which there had been some question, and those vessels had become obsolete before they had actually been sent to sea. To rush into the construction of vessels of a particular type, more especially of the Inflexible type, at a time when every year brought forth suggestions of costly change, was to incur needless and extravagant expenditure. He hoped that the First Lord of the Admiralty would be able to tell the Committee that the Ajax and Agamemnon had been so far changed in their construction that the defects which had been pointed out with reference to the Inflexible were not likely to be found to exist in the vessels which were now being built.
      CAPTAIN PRICEhad thought that the controversy respecting the Inflexible had been finally closed; but, as that question had been raised again, he must say that he sympathized, to a certain extent, with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in the doubts which he had expressed as to the desirability of going on with the building of vessels of the Inflexible type. But he did so for exactly the reasons which he gave when the question of the safety of the Inflexible was discussed. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) stated that ships of that class, on being subjected to heavy artillery fire, would become perfectly unsafe; and he (Captain Price) argued that the Inflexible was a perfectly safe ship, inasmuch as it would be impossible, under ordinary circumstances, to fire a sufficient number of shells into her to cause such a destruction of her unarmoured ends as to render her unsafe. It was for that very reason that he thought the Board of Admiralty were making a mistake in building these ships to carry a few very heavy guns. He found that that was the opinion also of many able naval officers. Quite lately this subject had been brought very prominently before the Navy. Several naval officers had competed for a prize given by the

      1577
      Admiralty, with, regard to the general designs of ships, and one of the points upon which they had all touched was this question of the number of guns. One officer had stated that a vessel of the Inflexible type, having four 80-ton guns, and firing at a similar vessel, could only be expected to hit from two to 15 times out of every 100 shots. That view had been very curiously verified in the action between the Shah and the Huascar. The total number of projectiles which was fired from the Shah and the Amethyst at the Huascar was no less than 430. How many of these projectiles did the Committee suppose struck the Huascar? Only eight—that was to say, something like 2 per cent. [Mr. D. JENKINS: At what distance?] That was the point. If they were always at Shoeburyness, and knew the range, they might put more shot into their target; but the distance was just one of the elements of uncertainty. What he wanted to argue from this was, that the Admiralty seemed to be running a-head rather too far in the matter of guns and armament. People asked, very naturally, where was all this to stop? They said that there was practically no end to it, and that civil engineers must decide for them where the end was to be. He entirely denied that. He maintained that naval officers ought to decide where the end was to be, and he thought that they could decide it. With regard to these monster guns, it was all very well to bring the greatest science of the country to bear upon their manufacture. No doubt, they produced an article which certainly was a very magnificent and beautiful weapon. They spent thousands of pounds in making it, and they spent hundreds of thousands in putting it afloat; but they did not ask themselves fairly, and by experiment, what they were to do with these guns when they had got them on board. Because, when the supreme moment came that they had to use these guns in action, they placed them under the control of a human, fallible creature, with all his imperfections visible upon him, and they could not say whether the shell which was under his control would hit the enemy or not. That must be so. They could not poise it. Therefore, what he maintained ought to be a part of their
      1578
      policy in building ships was that they should have a greater number of guns. The number of rounds which the Inflexible, with four 80-ton guns, could fire in 10 minutes was only 12, the weight of projectile thrown out in that time being nine tons. Besides considering the weight and size of the guns that were put in a ship, it was very desirable to consider what chance there was of hitting with those guns; and in future ships they ought rather, in his opinion, to have a greater number of moderate-sized guns than a diminished number of specially heavy guns.
      MR. BELLdoubted whether it would be quite safe for the Government to follow the advice which had been given them by the hon. and gallant Member who had last spoken. It would be difficult to say where they should have been landed if they had only naval officers at hand to advise them during the last 50 years. But one thing was quite certain, that they had had to wait for Sir William Armstrong to devise a gun of the necessary power that was now required in order to penetrate the iron plates of their vessels. There was no question that the manufacture of iron was, at the present moment, in a state of revolution. It was difficult to say what the future might be. They talked easily and lightly of iron and steel when, in point of fact, those best acquainted with the subject had not yet determined what was iron and what was steel. He mentioned this in order that the authorities might use that caution which they had up to this time exercised. With great prudence and propriety, they had consulted the manufacturers as to the mode of procedure to be pursued; because it was quite clear that without the assistance of the manufacturers and those well acquainted with the mode of preparing the metal, and with its quality when so prepared, very little way would be made without great hazard. There was no doubt in his mind that England might claim the merit of being foremost in the manufacture of armour plates; but he would caution the First Lord of the Amiralty against believing that other countries, and notably France, were not coming to the front in this particular industry. While in France recently, in the capacity of a juror at the Paris Exhibition,

      1579
      he had an opportunity of examining a new form of armour-plating of cast iron, which he took the liberty of recommending to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman was about to send someone to examine into that system of armour-plating. The question of armour-plating was one essentially of experiment. Their own Government went to a great amount of expense in testing armour-plates with ordnance of various calibre, and the results of these experiments were very properly detailed in a Blue Book. But in this matter, he had to reproach the Government with a certain parsimony. He had been unable, except in the Library of the House, to obtain a copy of this Blue Book, which was one of the works which ought to be in the hands of every practical ironmaster who wished to promote the object they were discussing.
      MR. BRUCEsaid, it appeared to him to be the duty of the Admiralty, while seeking to obtain the best scientific advice available, to keep up the strength of the Navy on the best models which, for the time being, could be suggested to it for that purpose. It was perfectly true that these models were invariably subjected to very hostile criticism. There were many gentlemen, very well informed, who said that all the ships the Admiralty were building would inevitably go down, and that those which did not happen to go down would be useless for the service for which they were intended. But that was no new complaint, and he hoped that the Admiralty would continue to produce ships after the test models at their command, so as to keep their Navy at the head of the Navies of all other nations with which they might be brought into contact. It was said that certain of their great ships—such, for instance, as the Inflexible—might, under very extraordinary circumstances, be unsafe. He was no judge of these matters. He pretended to no knowledge on the subject; but it had always appeared to him that if they were to build a powerful ship on the understanding that after her two engines were blown up she should then be as good as at the beginning, they were proposing a problem very difficult to solve. Be that as it might, it would appear that the class of vessel of which the Inflexible
      1580
      was a type, had been very largely adopted, and there could be no doubt that under ordinary circumstances, when their two ends were not blown away, they would be very formidable fighting ships. It would not be expedient, therefore, for the Admiralty to leave this country dependent for its protection on vessels which were inferior in fighting power to those of other countries; because vessels of the type he had mentioned might possibly, at some period, become unworkable. It was the business of the Admiralty to maintain their Navy at a point which would give it superiority over the Navies of other nations, even although, in so doing, they did not obtain the ideal model which the hon. Member for Burnley had suggested. They had heard some remarks from hon. Members on both sides of the House, with regard to the construction, equipment, and plating of iron-clads, which certainly ought not to be lost sight of, and which he was sure would not be forgotten by the First Lord of the Admiralty. They had often, on former occasions, heard the opinions of hon. Members who were fully able to discuss the question; but he ventured to say that there were gentlemen other than those in the House whose opinions were worth hearing. If they went upon the information obtained within the House alone, the Admiralty would lose the advantage of external authority which it might use, and which might prove to be very valuable. He thought it to be our duty to maintain the Fleet of England in the best condition possible, both with the lights al- ready before us, and the lights which the Admiralty could get from other sources. The question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price), as to whether a ship should have more than a small number of guns, was one of very great importance; but it could not be decided within the House. It was, in his view, necessary to trust to the Admiralty when they came forward and proposed any particular form of ship; and although that form might be open to objections, we must give them power: to adopt the form which, in their judgment, appeared to be the best suited to our requirements.
      MR. CHILDERSmight, perhaps, be allowed to say, speaking for himself

      1581
      only, with regard to the amended programme for the year, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty had taken a very wise course, on the whole, in changing the number of iron-clads. He now proposed to complete three instead of four ships, and he (Mr. Childers) was not at all surprised that he had found this plan to be a more convenient one than that which he at first intended to carry out. But this was not the point which most concerned him at the present time. It struck him that the present was a good opportunity for the Admiralty to determine, in a greater degree than heretofore, to carry through with the utmost expedition work taken in hand, so that when a new ship was laid down, nothing should be allowed to interfere with continuous work on it. He was quite aware that it was very difficult to make a change in the system under which the Dockyards had been working for so many years, under which changes were perpetually proposed in ships after they had been laid down, and they were again and again delayed until those changes were determined upon. Of course, his remarks did not apply to the question — the most important question—of change in the character of the iron or steel armour which had to be applied to some of those new ships. There could be no doubt that the discussions which had been hold on that point had been of great advantage. He had listened with great attention to the observations of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Bell), who possessed a practical knowledge of the subject, and he quite agreed with him that the improvement of steel and iron now in progress, as well as the improvements in the character of metal which could be applied to the sides of our ships, led to the opinion that we were on the verge of some valuable reform in that respect. But whatever might be the character of the armour ultimately to be applied, it was, in his opinion, desirable to push on the framework of the ships themselves, so that there should be no delay when the armour question was ultimately settled. He desired to refer briefly to another matter. The First Lord of the Admiralty had described the Hecla as a ship of small engine power, and added that he thought she would be very useful as
      1582
      showing what we could do when it became necessary to fall back upon the Merchant Service for ships required for certain purposes, and he said that she would be otherwise useful as a cruiser or transport. Now, he would very much regret to find the statement with regard to her small engine power to be correct; because the special merit of these steamers taken from the Merchant Service was their great speed. When it was remembered that ships of 13, 14, and 15 knots were employed in the Merchant Service, he thought it would appear that we had bought what was of very little value for the purpose intended. He should, therefore, be obliged if his right hon. Friend would give some information upon that point.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he cordially agreed with the opinion of his right hon. Friend, as to the expediency and necessity of accelerating the work when once it had been undertaken at the Dockyards. But there were conditions which his right hon. Friend himself was aware of, which pre-eminently required a certain amount of consideration, and the particular matter of armour was one that was giving Her Majesty's Government a great deal of anxiety, and which might possibly involve delay in the completion for sea of the Inflexible, Ajax, and Agamemnon. He would not be justified in coming to a conclusion at present upon a question which was admitted to be one of very considerable importance. Her Majesty's Government agreed most completely and thoroughly with the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, that the work should be finished as quickly as possible; but it frequently happened that they were obliged to make some alteration in the work to be undertaken which was the cause of delay. He was hardly in a position, at that moment, to give an answer that would convey sufficient information on the effect which the year's expenditure would have upon the future Estimates. They were only now beginning to draw breath; but he could assure his right hon. Friend and the Committee, that there was no one more desirous than himself to bring the expenditure for the Navy to a point which would be thoroughly satisfactory to the House and the country. He had, with

      1583
      the assistance of his Colleagues, considered the subject; but he did not wish to be committed to any statement of opinion. With regard to the Hecla, her horse power was 2,000, with a tonnage of 3,400; her speed was stated to be 12½ knots. She was purchased as a transport, and would be fitted as a transport by way of experiment; and unless the ship had been bought, it would have been impossible to get hold of a merchant ship to be treated in this manner, As soon as their experiment was complete, and they had satisfied themselves that such description of ship could be used with safety for the purposes intended, she would go into the general transport service. His hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price) had spoken of the importance of having more guns of less heavy calibre. This question had been very often under discussion, and with regard to it there existed great differences of opinion. It was to be borne in mind that a great many guns meant a great many men to work them, and that they would have to be spread along the sides of the ship in a manner that would interfere with the design of the armour. The engagement between the Shah and the Huascar had resulted, according to a good authority, in 2 per cent of the shots striking. He thought this case afforded an argument in favour of ships being armoured in their vital parts, because, had the Shah closed with the Huascar—which, being a large unarmoured ship, she could not do—at short range, a single shot from the Huascar would have sunk her. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was a great authority on these questions, and he (Mr. W. H. Smith) would be exceedingly sorry to treat with any want of respect the remarks which the hon. Gentleman might feel it his duty to make. He believed there was probably no higher authority in the House. The Admiralty had no preference for any particular construction. They had consulted those best able to advise them, including the officers who would be called upon to go to sea in those ships, and, perhaps, fight them; and their object was to keep their eyes open to every kind of improvement, and, by setting the form of one ship against another, to arrive at last at the very best that could be obtained. They felt themselves deeply
      1584
      responsible, not only to the House, but to the country. Although like other men, they were liable to error, they believed that, on the whole, the form adopted was the best in itself, and one which, on the whole, would tend most to strengthen the Navy of this country. They had no favour for one plan over another, but bestowed weeks of anxious consideration in considering the plans submitted. The plan of the ships decided upon was the best result of their judgment, and he hoped the House would sanction the course which they had adopted. With regard to the Inflexible, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in relation to that vessel, he certainly had not undertaken to bring on the subject in any form, nor to make any alteration, as far as the Inflexible was concerned. It was impossible to have a perfect ship —that was to say, a ship that would keep out any shot, that would be absolutely safe under all circumstances, which would be available for every condition of warfare, and, at the same time, be capable of causing the greatest amount of damage to the enemy with the least possible risk to herself. All he could say was that if any hon. Gentleman could design a vessel uniting all those qualities, he would be deserving of the greatest possible reward. The ships now building were not perfect ships; but were the best which, under the circumstances, the Admiralty could devise.
      MR. WHITWELLwished, in looking back to the time when the subject of the Admiralty Votes were before the House, to express his great gratification at the freedom from accidents during the administration of the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time, he did not for one moment express any approval of the propriety of the movements of the war ships. He believed we had now in the Mediterranean a larger amount of tonnage than had ever been in that sea before. It had been crowded during the last 12 months, and they had not heard of any ship getting on the rocks, and being afterwards towed off. He therefore desired to express his feeling of gratification at the good management in the Fleet which had been exhibited. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the ships which the Admiralty

      1585
      could at any time lay hands upon readily. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to state—and the country would hear it with gratification—that at any moment he could lay his hand on ships of greater speed than 12½ knots an hour, and that the equipment of those ships was in hand. He also understood him to say that he had not yet negotiated with the owners of those ships, and had not paid any money for the right of pre-emption. He (Mr. Whitwell) would be glad to know whether we had power to take possession in such a way as was possessed by the American Government, or whether the transference would at the time be simply a matter of purchase?
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) had been good enough to attribute to him a great deal more than he deserved. If it were the case that there had been no disaster whatever in the Mediterranean Fleet during the last year, it was due to the conduct and care of the gallant officers in command of the ships. He was quite prepared to accept any credit which might fairly belong to him; but, in the present instance, no credit whatever was due to him. With regard to the merchant ships that had been surveyed by the Surveyors to the Admiralty, they could acquire a much more considerable number than 30—probably 100 vessels, when they were needed— but he had not thought it right to make any bargain whatever with the owners. If any necessity arose, there would be no difficulty whatever in acquiring these ships at prices which would be for the occasion cheap; but any bargain which he might now make would be onerous to the country. It would, moreover, disturb their multiform arrangements, which he desired should go on in regular course. If occasion arose, he should instantly obtain powers from Parliament to deal with the subject.
      CAPTAIN PRICEasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could hold out any hope that the examination referred to in the foot-note to the Estimate, relating to the clerical department in the Dockyards, would take place? The matter was one of very great anxiety for the officers, and he (Captain Price) had a strong wish that it might be taken into consideration.
      MR. W. H. SMITHreplied, that the Accountant General's Department had received the necessary sanction, and would shortly proceed to consider the subject referred to.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      (2.) £1,199,300, Naval Stores for Building and Repairing the Fleet, &c.
      (3.) £1,042,000, Steam Machinery and Ships built by Contract, &c.
      (4.) £148,802, Greenwich Hospital and School.
      (5.) £678,000, Supplementary sum in respect of Extraordinary Naval and Transport Services.
      (6.) £434 7s. 5d., Greenwich Hospital and School (Excess, 1876–7).

    CIVIL SERVICES.

      CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
      (7.) £22,435, to complete the sum for the Public Works Office, Ireland.
      MAJOR NOLANasked what action the Government were going to take on the Report of the Committee in relation to Public Works in Ireland?
      SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the hon. and gallant Member would remember that the Report which had just been issued recommended a variety of changes in the Office, and pointed out certain defects. The effect of the Report would mean an entire reorganization of the Department, and a work of such magnitude could not have been decided on in a few days since the Report had been issued. He had no doubt that important changes would be made in the organization of the Department; but he did not think he could pledge himself more than that, beyond saying that a Report so valuable would be sure to be acted on in the course of next year.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
      (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £111,253, 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 Expense of the Superintendence of Prisons, and of the

      1587
      Maintenance of Prisoners in Prisons in Ireland, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals."
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he noticed that there was an item of £500 in the Vote which represented the salary of the Governor of Spike Island Convict Prison, and he would move to reduce the Vote by that sum. He would not at so late an hour have troubled the House with any observations in reference to the management of that establishment, had it not been for the fact that the public in Ireland had been startled by recent revelations made by a person who was detained there for a number of years. It had been his painful duty to call the attention of the House to the treatment of prisoners in Spike Island before, and he thought the facts now made public on the matter justified him in doing so again. The case of Robert Kelly, who was recently liberated, had attracted a great deal of attention, and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had a good practical object in alluding to it now. A Commission was already engaged in making inquiries into the Penal Servitude Act. They had made inquiries of a very elaborate character in England, and he expressed a hope that when they entered on similar duties in Ireland, they would recognize the necessity of making thorough investigation, especially into the management of Spike Island Convict Prison. There were certain gentlemen, professional and otherwise in Ireland, who were competent to give some very valuable evidence respecting the management of these prisons. And he appealed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and to the Attorney General for Ireland, to see that this inquiry was made. He knew very well what would be said on the first blush of the question. He should be asked where was his evidence; and he would reply from a long statement in a Dublin newspaper. After reading that Report, he considered a full investigation necessary, and an investigation made by a Commission and not by officials who, although with every desire to do their duty, had, in two cases to his knowledge, held inquiries which led to no satisfactory results. The case of Spike Island should attract the serious attention of the Government. He believed, a few years ago, there was something like a riot in the establishment,
      1588
      not among the political prisoners, but ordinary convicts, and from what he had read he was not surprised that there were riots and disturbances. There must be something wrong in that island home of these unfortunate men. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to a few statements made by Mr. Robert Kelly since his release from prison, and if the Session had not nearly arrived at its close, he would have taken other means to bring the matter before hon. Members. It might have been proper first to put questions to Ministers, and ask if there was any ground for the allegations which had been made public? But, knowing what official answers in that House were, knowing the extent to which Ministers had to depend upon information supplied to them by the officials inculpated, he confessed he could not look upon such a mode of procedure with unlimited confidence. Seven years ago, Kelly was sentenced to 15 years' penal servitude, and he had been liberated after serving seven years. In so far as that act of the Government represented an act of clemency towards a man who had committed a grave offence, and for which he should have been punished, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) returned his thanks. Now, it was stated that Kelly went into prison a strong, healthy man; but at the end of seven years, just as in the case of the others which had been brought before the House, he had been turned out of prison in a deplorable condition. It was stated in The Freeman's Journal, and other newspapers, that immediately after his release, he was induced to submit himself to an examination at the hands of Dr. Kenny, a well-known physician in the city of Dublin. The paper states—
      "Dr. Kenny found the patient almost faint with weakness. The heart's action was poor and thready, registering 100 heats per minute. His limbs displayed no muscle, and the flesh was limp and flabby. He was badly affected with angina, or severe spasms, and his digestive system was completely disorganized."
      This, then, was the man who, seven years previously, went into the hands of the gaolers in a perfect state of health. Of course, it would be said that one of the effects of penal servitude was to considerably impair the health of those who were subject to it. If that was acknow-

      1589
      ledged and recognized, this country was responsible for permitting a system of prison discipline which robbed a man of what he would call the fee simple which he had in his constitution. He could not be satisfied with an answer to the effect that the system of penal servitude must materially impair the health of persons subject to it—mentally or physically. Then it might be said that Kelly had a peculiar constitution, and that seven years' penal servitude would have an extraordinary effect upon him. But what was particularly deplorable was that this shattered health generally came to men who had been imprisoned for political offences. It was a well-known fact in Ireland that prisoners convicted of murder, burglary, or the worst of offences, were better treated than those whose crimes were of a political nature. Why was this done? He did not say in every case that the action of the prison officials was the result of villainy. But he did say that sometimes when a man was recognized as a political offender, passions were excited against him, which induced the prison officials to strain their rules, if for no other reason than that it was necessary to take special precautions in the treatment of this class of prisoners. There was a record of the way in which Kelly was treated. He would spare the Committee a full recital of the facts, but he must bring some of them before it. Speaking of the severity of the prison regulations, Kelly remarked—
      "I knew one poor fellow from Ship Street, Dublin, named Branagan, to be handcuffed with his hands behind his back for eight months."
      He invited the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to that statement, because it had received a very full share of public attention. Of course, he would be met with the remark that these were mere allegations. Be they allegations or not, they had been made, and published to the world, and the Government now had an opportunity of making a thorough investigation of the statement. The Governor of Spike Island should feel that his conduct was open to suspicion at all events; and it would be the duty of the Commissioners, when they went to examine the Irish prisons, to see that their examination was not a sham
      1590
      one. Well, to continue Kelly's observations about Branagan. He said—
      "I once heard him pray aloud to the gaolers to take off the manacles, if even for a few moments. That night I saw him reclining in his cell, and he died. A coroner's jury said that death was natural."
      There were only two other prisoners at the prison who had been guilty, not of a political offence, but of an offence arising out of excitement. Kelly said of one of them—Edward O'Connor—
      "The poor fellow suffered from a running abscess upon one hip, which is most painful, and for which he is under constant medical treatment; but the authorities do not deem his case sufficiently bad to remove him to the hospital. Ho has also been sentenced to confinement for the smallest offences; and for certain statements which this prisoner made to his sister regarding his treatment, on the occasion of her last visit, he was sent to the punishment cell for three weeks, and fed on bread and water."
      Such a thing was almost incredible, and that such a thing should be allowed made him lose all confidence in the Government. The whole system of prison discipline was discussed by Parliament last year, and the Home Secretary flattered himself he had dealt a death-blow to the obnoxious features of the system, which was something to be thankful for. But what did they find? That the rules, as carried out in the Spike Island gaol, were of the worst character. Once, at Spike Island, Kelly, for a period of four days, was confined in a filthy, foul-smelling cell, without chair or table, his only seat being a low footstool or boss. His food was served to him on the floor, and he said—" When I could, I ate it like a beast—off the ground." Such an allegation was surely enough to bring the blush of shame to everyone connected with the management of the prison. The man also stated that for days he was compelled, notwithstanding that he was in very bad health, to work in the rain until his clothes were soaked through. That he was subject to a system of persecution was undeniable, seeing the condition in which he had returned to his friends. Who was responsible for all this, and by whom would a remedy be enforced? There was the case of James Dillon, brought under the notice of the House some time ago. Then the Home Secretary

      1591
      said an investigation was made by the Inspector, who said the report was not true. But what was wanted was an investigation by a Royal Commission— a thoroughly impartial investigation. In his opinion, if they wanted to arrive at the truth in regard to any matter involving criminal responsibility, they must have an impartial body to investigate the matter, and then the whole thing would be thoroughly sifted. He did not say that the statement of Kelly was to be accepted in preference to that of any official, nor was he going to advance the absurd proposition that a prison official, because he was such, was to be discredited. But he said it was still more absurd to ask a man who was charged with a certain thing whether it was true, and then come to the House and say it was not. There ought to be something done by which the public would become aware of the management of these prisons. It was suggested, in the discussion on the Prisons Act, that a complaint-book might be kept, where a prisoner could write his complaints every week, and that the public might be able to demand an examination of the book on payment of 1s. It was also suggested that facilities should be given to Members of that House to drop upon the officials when they were not expected, thereby securing something like public supervision of what was going on. All these proposals were rejected by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who undertook to devise means by which there should be visits to prisons by impartial persons. There were the Visiting Justices before; but now, in their stead, there was a regular body of Inspectors. It was only by the greatest possible effort that anything like a candid statement of the facts of a case could be obtained, and hence he wanted an inquiry by the Royal Commission. The object he had in moving the rejection of the salary of the Governor of Spike Island was that he was the only person who appeared to be responsible. He had received letters from persons who had many opportunities of having occasional glimpses of what was going on, and there was a concurrence of testimony which satisfied him. Whatever decision might be taken now with the view of getting through Supply, he
      1592
      trusted hon. Gentlemen would hold their judgment in reserve, and would expect the Government to see during the Recess that there was a thorough investigation into the management of Spike Island and other prisons; so that next year the House might be able to congratulate themselves that they had done something to prevent a repetition of such deplorable occurrences.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose to reduce the Vote by £500?
      MR. O'CONNOR POWER: £500.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £110,753, 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 Expense of the Superintendence of Prisons, and of the Maintenance of Prisoners in Prisons in Ireland, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals." —(Mr. O' Connor Power.)
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYwas glad his hon. Friend had taken this opportunity of bringing under the consideration of the House, before the close of the Session, the present state of prison discipline. He quite admitted the inconvenience, and even the absurdity, of being compelled to propose the reduction of the salary of one of the Government officers, who, after all, was not the person to blame, because he was only a servant of the Government; but he believed that, at the present time, our prisons were as much in need of the exertions and investigations of a Howard as they were at the time of that distinguished philanthropist. Though the statements now being made to the House would have little weight, though they would not be reported in the public Press, and though those who were listening might wish those who troubled them at this hour—1 A.M.—would cease to address the Committee, he would not on that account be prevented from stating what he believed it was his duty to state to the House. During the last three weeks, he had had occasion frequently to trouble the House in a way very unpleasant to himself. It was his habit not to call attention in that House to public wrongs until he had first tried to have them redressed by efforts made outside the House. With regard to the

      1593
      new Prison Rules, he had done his best privately to get the Home Secretary to make explanations, and to enter into reasonable discussion. He was now convinced that the Government knew nothing whatever about what was going on in prisons. He could come to no other conclusion; because, if they were not ignorant, they would be wilfully deceiving the House. The answers given to the Questions he had asked had simply had the effect of deceiving the public.
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I object to that statement, that the answers of the Government are given for the purpose of deceiving the public.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYexplained that he never said that. It was impossible that hon. Gentlemen like the Home Secretary or the Chief Secretary for Ireland would wish to deceive the public; but he said it was because they did not know what was going on that they gave such answers. The reason why they did not know was evident. The right hon. Gentleman had so much other work that he had delegated the work of inquiry to one particular Commissioner. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: No.] The right hon. Gentleman said "No." He was quite aware that there were associated with that Commissioner two other gentlemen who had made a Report; but there was always a master-mind, who, on this occasion, was Sir Edmund Du Cane, who, he believed, was one of the most injudicious and hard-hearted men that ever had the management of prisons. The result was that a system of torture had been introduced into our prisons. A system of torture had been introduced into this country and Ireland, which was a disgrace to civilization, and which would not be endured by the House of Commons when they fairly knew what was going on. The ordinary beds upon which, in Ireland, prisoners had been accustomed to sleep and been taken away from them, and a bare board given, on which they slept, either in their shirts or, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland said, in nightshirts. But the answer given by the Chief Secretary was deceptive. Bedding was talked of, and that expression was used in a manner calculated entirely to deceive the House, and to make them suppose that bedding was something on
      1594
      which prisoners lay. Covering, however, was the proper name for the kind of bedding these prisoners had. Men and women, and children, also, until this week — when the Government, having their attention called to this subject, chose to order that children should not be so treated—were compelled, under the new Rules, to lie for a month on bare planks. That was torture; for why had the plank bed been substituted for the hammocks and mattresses of former times?—to deprive men of sleep; and to deprive men of sleep was to bring them to the verge of insanity. There were numbers of prisoners who had already been driven into insanity by the discipline of our prisons. This matter of the plank-bed had been commented on in Ireland in a way that ought to produce some impression on the Government. It had been said that this prison treatment was the result of a recommendation of a Committee of the House of Lords. It was true that in the Report of that Committee there occurred this passage—
      "The Committee recommend that during short sentences, or the earlier stages of long confinement, the prisoner should be made to dispense with the use of a mattress, and to sleep upon a plank."
      That Report was dated 1863. He turned to the evidence upon which the Report was based; and here was a specimen of it. The Committee asked the then Inspector of Prisons—
      "Are you aware that in military prisons they take away the soldier's bed, and when the soldier is obliged to be on duty once in three nights they do the same?—Yes. Could that be applied in prisons? Would it be desirable to take away part of the bed, and leave nothing but planks?"
      The Inspector answered that he did not think this would be desirable. It would not contribute to health to do so. In reply to the Marquess of Salisbury, the witness said it would be the reverse of healthy, for it would keep men awake, and give them bad nights. This was the kind of evidence given to the Committee, and he had been unable to discover on what grounds the recommendation of the Committee had been made. No one could have believed that such treatment could have been applied to women. When he first gave attention to this subject, he supposed that it

      1595
      affected men exclusively, and suggested to the Home Secretary that, at any rate, a hole should be made in the plank in which the hip bone could rest; for anyone who had had occasion, in campaigning or otherwise, to lie out, knew that it was a great alleviation of pain and distress to make such a hole for the hip bone. The suggestion was not received as it ought to have been. The right hon. Gentleman did not know whether there was a hole in the plank or not; but promised to inquire, if he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) wished, and to inform him. He remonstrated gently; stating his regret that the Home Secretary should not think it necessary that he should know this for himself, and that no kind of desire should be expressed to make even a reasonable concession like that. Now, after Question upon Question had been put to the Government, and something like an angry feeling raised in the country, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that the suggestion would be taken notice of. At that time, however, he had no notion that anybody could be so barbarous as to put women on these bare planks; and if this were a specimen of the discipline to be enforced under the new Rules, the sooner that discipline was altered the better. With regard to diet, he had never read a book so absurd, in many respects, as the Report made to Sir Edmund Du Cane, by his direction, on the subject of dietary. The dietary was already as bad as it could possibly be, and under present regulations, no food was given between 4 o'clock in the afternoon and 8 in the morning. Here was a passage from the Report of the Committee who made the recommendations on which the dietary had been reformed—
      "In the course of our numerous visits to local gaols, we have conversed with many prisoners; we have watched them all hours of the day, and we cannot avoid the conclusion that in a large number of cases, imprisonment, as now generally conducted, is a condition more or less akin to 'physiological rest.' The struggle for survival is suspended; and the prisoner appears to feel that the prayer for daily bread is rendered unnecessary by the solicitude of his custodians. Tranquillity of mind and freedom from anxiety are leading characteristics of his life. From the moment that the prison gates close behind him, the tendency, in most cases, is to lessened waste of tissue; he lives, in fact, less rapidly than before.
      1596
      "' He is insensibly subdued
      To settled quiet;'
      and finds, in many instances, a peace and repose to which, as a law-abiding citizen, he was perchance a stranger.
      "We have found that the work exacted of prisoners is never excessive; and here we may remark that it is not work, bodily or mental, that kills men; it is worry; and from worry prisoners, as a rule, are free. ' Work is wholesome, but worry is like rust, which eats into the blade and destroys it.'
      "Most prison medical officers, when first appointed, experience a certain fluttering when called upon to see one of the inmates at night, and are oppressed with the thought of conscious criminals tossing upon troubled beds; ' Multi per somnia sœpe loquentes aut morbo delirantes peccata dedisse;' * but they soon find that the prisoners nestle very comfortably in their hammocks, and that however guilty their consciences may be, they do not trouble them. Each prisoner seems to be able to say—
      "'I feel within me
      A peace above all earthly dignities,
      A still and quiet conscience.' "
      This was the rubbish upon which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Assheton Cross) pinned his faith. If stern and solemn facts could not have any effect in leading to a thorough investigation into these subjects, he hoped the additional element of ridicule which, for the first time, he believed had been thrown upon a subject of this kind in a Parliamentary Paper by the pedantry and absurdity of the gentleman whom the right hon. Gentleman had called upon to assist him, would prove as potent a weapon now as it had done in the reform of past abuses.
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am only going to say a few words; but I wish to remove a wrong impression, which seems to be in the mind of the hon. Gentleman. That impression seems to me to be due to the fact that he is better acquainted with the Irish prisons than with the English prisons. As I understand, the use of plank beds has not been general in Ireland, but has only been resorted to in the case of punishment; and the hon. Gentleman seems to have fancied that England was in the same position. I want to remove that mistake from his mind. I have not yet got a complete list of all the prisons of England in which plank beds have been in use since the passing of the Prison Act of 1865. Therefore, not the slightest change has been made by the Prison Rules in that

      1597
      respect. [The right hon. Gentleman here read a long list of English prisons in which the plank bed had been used since 1865.] The only effect of the Prison Rules, so far as this matter is concerned, is this—that whereas there were prisons where the plank bed was in use only for three weeks, and others where a prisoner was compelled to be on the plank bed for three months, the new Rules introduced uniformity, and though, in some few cases, the period may now be a little longer in a great many prisons, the effect of the new Rules is to reduce the period during which the plank bed is in use. I am not speaking now of punishment discipline. In all the gaols which I have mentioned the plank bed is part of the ordinary discipline.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes further, may I ask whether I am to understand that for short sentences of a month or so prisoners in England have been compelled to lie on these planks, and that women have also before the present Rules been so treated?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSS: For short sentences, in many gaols, undoubtedly. I will speak of women in a moment. I have been confining my remarks to the case of men. The women are to be considered. They are to have some covering on the plank, though not an ordinary mattress. With regard to short-sentence prisoners, it may seem hard that they should be treated with the same severity in this respect as those with longer sentences. But there are many short-sentence prisoners who must be made to know that a prison is a prison. I remember going into one prison last year. There was an old woman there, to whom the magistrate who was with me said— "Are you here again? You tell the gentleman here how many times you have been in gaol." "Well," she said, "this is the 96th time." Now, a prison is not a place for a woman of that kind, who had looked upon this prison, where she had been too leniently treated, as a kind of workhouse, and who invariably in winter committed some petty theft for the purpose of being committed to gaol. Then about the food. I stated the other day that there was no difference made in the hours at which it is given in any prison in England. In any prison where 5 o'clock may have been the latest
      1598
      hour for the afternoon meal, the reason there has been no alteration is that a Committee has been sitting for the express purpose of inquiring into this matter, and finding out, before any alteration is made, what hours are best. They have not yet reported. As to the Report quoted by the hon. Gentleman, I do not know that the flowery language has anything to do with the Report made to me. I think it a pity that these words are there; but, putting aside the flowery language, I do not think you will find better or more experienced men than those who have drawn up the dietary. Dr. Gower is a man very well known in London. I suppose the best regulated gaol in the whole of England before the passing of the present Prisons Act and the one which was the most respected by everybody who had anything to do with it was the gaol at Salford. The doctor there was looked up to by everyone who had the slightest business connection with that prison. He was specially chosen for that Committee; and I am bound to say that if this dietary table is compared with the dietary tables of 1843 and 1864, it will be found that it is greatly advanced. Although it has only been in force for a short time, I have had favourable Reports made to me as to the weights of the prisoners; and as another test of the diet, I have learned that in many prisons where formerly the surgeons had ordered extra diet for their patients, they had been able to dispense almost entirely with extra diet when the new dietary was introduced. If more time and fuller experience verified these favourable results, there will be strong and conclusive testimony in favour of the new dietary. I can only assure the hon. Member that the working of this Act will be watched with the greatest care, not by one Member of the Commission or another, but by myself. I am bound to say that I cannot really allow the words used by the hon. Member with reference to the admirable officer, Sir Edmund Du Cane, to go unchallenged. He is not a hard-hearted man. I can say that most positively. One hon. Member has made some observations as to convict prisons. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) will bear me witness that at the time the present Act passed through Committee, I was pressed very much by him to have one Board for convict prisons

      1599
      and local prisons, and I refused because I did not want those local prisons to be treated on the same system as convict prisons. I chose out of a Commission of four, two gentlemen who were magistrates of long standing and experience, and of high probity in their respective counties. I was thankful to get them, so that their experience as old Visiting Justices of local prisons would be advantageous in the way of counteracting the influence—if any should be felt—of convict prison management on local prisons. I think I asked the hon. Gentleman to go and see them. They would remove some of his present impressions with regard to the working of local prisons. [Mr. O'CONNOR POWER: Would the right hon. Gentleman mention names?] Admiral Hornby, and Mr. Watlington, formerly Member for Essex. In the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just asked these names, he appeared to me to pass very rapidly from convict to local prisons, and he complains that there has been no system of visitation. Now, in the local prisons, the power of visitation is absolutely perfect at present. There are Visiting Committees, who visit these prisons as part of their duty, and every Justice could go into the prison at any moment he chose. Then there are Inspectors, who go round the country constantly; and there are four Commissioners, who divide the country among them, for the purpose of visiting the prisons. From the passing of the Act up to the present moment, he had never received from the Visiting Justices a single complaint of ill-usage. At the beginning of next Session I hope I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Member with positive proofs that he has no cause for complaint.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the reason he did not go to see the gentleman named by the Home Secretary was that the right hon. Gentleman said he could not see the Chief Commissioner (Sir Edmund Du Cane) on account of his numerous engagements. His (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) experience of treatment in prisons was derived from this country much more than from Ireland. As a Middlesex magistrate he was very familiar with the discipline of several of the Metropolitan prisons. The Committee would have observed that the Home Secretary had not said that the
      1600
      system of laying on plank beds did not apply to women. True, the beds had been in use for men in England for many years; but Sir Edmund Du Cane knew no difference in the discipline of men and women. He believed the country would not stand such a rule, and that the planks would have to be abolished. There were a great many things on which he would not trouble the Committee; but he must allude to one—the hours during which prisoners were confined in their cells — a plan which was absolutely destructive of health. They were confined in a cell from 7 to 9 and 11 feet long and 4 feet wide, with a window at the top to admit the light. Those not sentenced to hard labour were kept in these cells, with the exception of one hour for exercise, for 24 hours. That was a thing which, if it occurred in Naples, would have excited the indignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich; and surely the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could not say it was a proper mode of treatment in England. It was disgraceful that a human being should be kept for 23 consecutive hours in such a place, because he had been guilty of some offence, but had not been sentenced to hard labour. Then, look how these Rules would work. People might be imprisoned in the county prisons for the non-payment of fines; a cabman might be sent to prison for loitering in the street, or for any other trivial offence; and yet these men or women or children were subjected to exactly the same discipline as the greatest offender, or the old woman who seemed to have made such an impression on the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. There was an old saying that hard cases made bad laws, and he believed this was one of the cases. There was a very melancholy side to the question of the old woman who had been imprisoned 96 times, and who was compelled to commit crime in order to get shelter. The majority of mankind, whether males or females, did not go to prison willingly, but very unwillingly, and a great number were imprisoned for the first time under circumstances which reduced their nervous system to a distressing condition. He maintained that it was wrong to punish those persons in the same way as they

      1601
      did habitual criminals at the suggestion of Inspectors of prisons—military men, like Sir Edmund Du Cane. He thought they should adapt their discipline to the nature of the offence they had to punish. It was wrong to treat a person sent to gaol for the non-payment of fines in the same severe manner as they would a convicted felon. It was manifestly unfair that those convicted for short periods should lay for a month on a plank the same as those who had long terms of imprisonment, the punishment in the first instance being very much harsher than in the second. In many cases of long sentences the month on the plank was taken out in instalments; whereas the unfortunate wretch who was sent to gaol for the breach of a municipal regulation, or who was unable to pay a fine, was compelled to lay for a whole month upon this plank. Such discipline could not be justified; it was not discipline at all. It was a clumsy attempt, on the part of men who really had no knowledge of what things ought to be, to carry out Rules which never ought to have been made.
      MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was not a question of rules being at fault, but of the law. He should be glad to see in the Summary Jurisdiction Bill, if passed this year, a clause providing that persons sent to prison for non-payment of fines or similar small offences should not be treated as an ordinary criminal.
      THE CHAIRMANreminded the Committee that any reference to the English prisons would be more appropriately discussed on the English Vote.
      THE O'CONOR DONtrusted his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the Committee against the Vote. His hon. Friend had pointed out complaints which were made with regard to the treatment of prisoners in Spike Island, and he had appealed to the Government to order an inquiry into these complaints. He trusted that the Royal Commission appointed at the commencement of the Session would be instructed to make such an inquiry, and knowing the character of the gentlemen upon that Commission, he believed their investigation would be above suspicion. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that more confidence would be felt in the inquiries of an independent Commission, such as that which had
      1602
      been appointed, than in the results of an inquiry by any official. He had no doubt that this Commission would investigate the treatment of convicts at Spike Island; and, therefore, the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo would have been secured. In England, the convict prisons and the ordinary county prisons were kept distinct, and under the new law they were not to be amalgamated. But such was not the case in Ireland. Under the new law, the governments of the two sets of prisons were to be amalgamated, and one Board was to govern the whole. Up to the present time there had been a system of Board Superintendents in each county to govern the county prisons, corresponding to the Visiting Justices; but these had been done away with. If the system was to work well, it was essential that they should give some sort of power to those visiting the gaol, or give them an opportunity of communicating with the Prison Board. He suggested that the Visiting Justices should have the power of going to the prisons and have an opportunity of meeting the members of the Prison Board.
      MR. H. SAMUELSONdesired that the Home Secretary should explain one passage in his statements, which, as it stood, was not clear or satisfactory. He wished to know whether, before the new Rules were initiated, women had not to sleep upon planks, and whether, since the passing of these Rules, they had so to sleep?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they had to sleep upon these beds.
      MR. DILLWYNwished the Home Secretary had said something in answer to the serious allegations made by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). He had stated that one man had had his hands chained behind him for eight months, and if that were true, it was nothing else but a system of torture, into which a serious investigation was necessary. Flogging had been done away with to a great extent, and this country would never allow to be substituted for it a system of slow torture.
      MR. J. LOWTHERconsidered that the hon. Gentleman had been led away by the discussion which had taken place. After the able and moderate speech of the hon. Member for Mayo, which was within the scope of the Vote, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell

      1603
      Henry), as an illustration of the adage that blood is thicker than water, abandoned the land of his adoption and rushed headlong to that of his birth, and regardless of the rules which regulated discussions in Committee of Supply, had brought up a subject which might more appropriately have been discussed upon the English Vote. He should not follow the hon. Gentleman, after the very clear statement of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, further than to point out a few observations he made in reply to questions upon the subject. He then stated that children in Ireland were not placed upon a plank bed. As for Robert Kelly, he had every reason to believe that he was treated with great care, in consequence of his state of health, and his condition was the subject of special inquiry. As to the various details of the treatment of prisoners mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, by facts brought to his knowledge, he had every reason to believe that they could not be supported. After the statement of certain alleged facts, the hon. Gentleman had urged that the matter should be brought before the Penal Servitude Commission. Neither he nor any other Member of Her Majesty's Government had any control over the movements of that Commission; but he should be very glad if they saw their way to conduct an inquiry into the Irish prisons, including that at Spike Island. He need scarcely say that every facility for doing so would be afforded by the Government.
      MR. H. SAMUELSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary did not answer his question. He wished to know whether women had to sleep on plank beds before the new Rules were initiated? The reason he asked this was that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the new Rules made no change in this respect.
      MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had stated that there was no change with regard to men; but that in the case of women it was different.
      MAJOR NOLANsaid, the Home Secretary had been very anxious to prove that the Rules made in 1865 were made by others than himself, and he seemed desirous of putting those Rules upon a former Government. This was in great contrast to the statements which were made when a change for the better was effected, for then every credit was taken
      1604
      for what had been accomplished. There was no doubt that the present Rules were very unpopular, and the right hon. Gentleman did not like his Government and Party to bear the onus of the extreme unpopularity of the system. It had been said in a former discussion that soldiers had to sleep upon these plank beds; but that was only once in six or seven nights, and then only for a portion of the night. It might be a necessity to adopt such a plan in the case of soldiers; but the whole tone of the discussion in the House had been that they were not good in every case. If they did good, no doubt the Government would say they were a necessary and useful system, and they would take the whole responsibility for their use. But that had not been done by the Government on the present occasion, and he could well understand the reason for it. These Rules as they stood must bear very heavily in some cases. For instance, under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, a respectable farmer might be imprisoned and come under these Rules, and have to sleep for a month on a plank bed. He was glad to be clear of all complicity in the passing of such Rules, and he trusted his hon. Friend would divide the House as a protest against such a system.
      MR. MELDONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not sought to defend the system of plank beds in England. He pointed out that he found it in force, and the action of Government had been to make punishment less severe. Severity of punishment had on the whole been decreased; but how did that bear on Ireland? In trying to assimilate the Prison Law in England and Ireland, the greatest indignation had been excited from one end of the country to the other. The Lord Chief Baron and Mr. Baron Dowse had stated their opinions distinctly. The Lord Chief Baron said, as far as women were concerned, he would not be a party to sentencing them to imprisonment except for crimes of violence, and Mr. Baron Dowse said he should inflict much shorter terms of imprisonment in consequence of the torture prisoners had to go through. It was perfectly indefensible that whereas a prisoner sentenced to two years' imprisonment had to sleep on a plank for a month extended over the whole period, an individual

      1605
      sent to prison for one month had to sleep for the whole time on a plank. He objected to the introduction of such an abominable and atrocious system of torture into Ireland, and he thought they must take a division, either then or subsequently, to mark their opinion as to the treatment which the Irish prisoners had received at the hands of the Government, by having such a species of torture inflicted upon them.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the sentiments of the Chief Secretary for Ireland were quite out of unison with the sentiments of the humane and enlightened people he had to govern. He did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of desiring to mislead; but he did mislead to such an extent that the placards of some of the Irish newspapers announced the abolition of the plank beds. The answers given were couched in such language that they bore a double meaning, and were understood by partizans of the Government in one way, and by those behind the scenes in another way. He wanted to know whether these questions could not be answered in a full and straightforward manner? If the Government said—"We have adopted the plank bed. We think it the right thing, and we mean to stick to it," there would be no misunderstanding. He was now in some doubt upon the whole subject; but what had been elicited had been elicited only by piecemeal, and in a way which he thought not at all satisfactory. He hoped hon. Members would make a protest by their votes.
      MR. A. MOOREdid not think there was cause for the remarks made by the previous speaker as to the straightforwardness of the answers to questions. The question was not raised by the hon. Member for the first time, for before he had taken up the subject he had brought it under the attention of the House. He would now say to the Ministry that prison managers having done so long without these plank beds in Ireland, it was a pity that they were not dispensed with altogether. The way in which the extra punishment they inflicted was introduced by a side-wind, as it were, and without the Judges knowing the extent of the punishment they were inflicting, was most improper.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was entirely mistaken in saying that he
      1606
      (Mr. Mitchell Henry) took up this question after him. Long before he had moved in it, he had gone to the Home Secretary on the subject. He was not, however, so easily satisfied by official answers as the hon. Member.
      MR. LEEMAN,though he did not see how this question of plank beds could rise out of the particular Vote on which the Committee was asked to express an opinion, thought the discussion would result in good, even in England. The Home Secretary had promised to give his own attention to the subject of prison treatment. He was glad of that, because anything more barbarous than Prison Rules rendering it necessary that persons who had been sent to prison for a month should be subject to the plank bed he could not conceive. In the large prisons in England a large proportion of the commitments were for one month.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that, although the question of plank beds as affecting Ireland is before the Committee, the question of plank beds as affecting England is not.
      MR. LEEMANcould only say that if he were to be put down on a reference to that question which had constituted the principal feature of the debate by an objection of this kind, he would certainly avail himself of another opportunity of seeking to have the question really discussed. He said without hesitation that the largest number of committals was the number of those for one month, and many of those committals were not for felony, or anything approaching to it; but for minor offences, for which the plank bed punishment should not be put in force. He therefore thought the Committee ought to be obliged to the Members for Ireland who had brought this question under the notice of the Committee. Such cases as that of the old woman, to which the Home Secretary referred, were unusual; the commitments for short periods being generally commitments for offences of a very venial nature. He trusted that before next Session the use of the plank bed in these commitments would be abolished.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERwas anxious to take the course most suitable to the Committee in reference to the Vote. In reply to the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), the Chief Secretary

      1607
      for Ireland made a statement which, as far as it went, was a very fair statement. He declared, on the part of the Government, that if the Commission thought proper to investigate the management of Irish prisons, every facility would be afforded them. In fact, as he (Mr. O'Connor Power) understood him, he expressed a hope that they would see their way to make that inquiry. Now, that was a point gained. The right hon. Gentleman was not in a position to contradict the grave accusations he (Mr. O'Connor Power) brought against the the Governor of Spike Island, and there he supposed the matter must rest; and having regard to the turn the discussion had taken, he thought he would be justified in asking the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment he had proposed, but with a view to its being discussed again. Against the introduction, under these Prison Rules, of the barbarous plank bed, he wished to test the feeling of the Committee; but he would withdraw his present Amendment.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I object to the Vote, and move that it be reduced by one shilling.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will be departing from the practice of the Committee in proposing such a Motion. I understand him to wish to raise an issue equivalent to negativing the Vote.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Then I will negative the Vote.
      MAJOR NOLAN: We only propose to negative the Vote as an expression of our opinion on the subject of plank beds. I should like that to be understood.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERappealed to the Home Secretary, before the Question was put, to say whether he was prepared to tell the country that he had assented to this new mode of punishment in Irish prisons without a reason for doing it. Could he not rise in his place and give some assurance that it would be stopped?
      MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had nothing to do with the Prison Rules so far as Ireland was concerned.
      THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he believed the Rules were sent over from England to the Board in Ireland, who had to adopt them. They were not originated
      1608
      by the Board in Dublin. They were English Rules which came over to them in order that, for the sake of uniformity, they might be adopted in Ireland. His hon. Friend proposed to take a division on this Vote for the whole amount of the expenses of the Irish Prisons, in order to make his protest against the plank beds; but he confessed it seemed to him that this was not a very satisfactory mode of expressing an opinion. There might be a strong opinion that these beds should be discontinued, and, at the same time, there might be an indisposition to stop the supplies for the expenses of the Irish prisons. He would not be inclined to vote against the whole Vote because he objected to plank beds, and he feared a division taken against the Vote would be a bad one; whereas, if the question were raised directly, the division might be a good one.
      MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked leave to move that the Vote be reduced. He noticed on the Treasury Bench some indication of dissent from his hon. Friend's (the O'Conor Don's) remark that the Prison Rules were sent from England to be adopted in Ireland. It was true that the Prison Rules were elaborated in England and sent over to Ireland. The Privy Council in Ireland, however, was not nearly unanimous, though a majority adopted the Rules. He would move to reduce the Vote by £100, as a protest against plank beds.
      Motion made, and Question put,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £111,153, 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 Expense of the Superintendence of Prisons, and of the Maintenance of Prisoners in Prisons in Ireland, and of the Registration of Habitual Criminals." —(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 51: Majority 30. — (Div. List, No. 253.)
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERintimated that as the happy moment of going out of Committee of Supply had now been reached, it would not now be necessary to have a Morning Sitting.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Is it intended that there shall be a Morning Sitting on Saturday?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes.
      MR. MELDON: When will Report of to-day's Supply be taken?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: To-morrow.
      MR. M. BROOKSasked, whether any opportunity would be given to hon. Members to bring forward Private Bills on Saturday?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is as well to be clear upon that point. I think, considering the position in which the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill stands, and considering all that has passed in relation to that Bill, it would not be right that the Session should close without our endeavouring to give the House an opportunity of considering the Bill on its third reading. I should propose, therefore, to take that Bill on Saturday.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Will there be any other Business taken?
      MR. DILLWYN: When will the Appropriation Bill be taken?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Irish Sunday Closing Bill will be taken first on Saturday, and some other Business afterwards. The Appropriation Bill will be brought in tomorrow. Its second reading will not be taken on Saturday; but, perhaps, it will be taken on Monday.
      In reply to Mr. LEEMAN,
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Inclosure Bill would probably be taken to-morrow.
      MAJOR NOLAN: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in rather a communicative mood, can he make a good guess at the date of the Prorogation?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould not do that at present.
      DR. O'LEARYsaid, it had been reported that the discussion of the Irish Sunday Closing Bill would be made to extend over Saturday night, and carried on during Sunday. He was anxious to know whether it was possible that this Bill would be brought on under the auspices of the Government at such an hour that its discussion might be possibly continued for the time suggested?
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It will be brought on at 12 o'clock.
      MR. M. BROOKSwished to know whether, in that case, the Rule applicable to Wednesday Sittings would apply
      1610
      so that the Sitting would terminate at 6.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is no limit, I believe, to such a Sitting as is proposed for Saturday.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

    EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.

      LEAVE. ORDERED.
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [7th August], "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to continue various Expiring Laws."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
      Question again proposed.
      Debate resumed.
      MAJOR O'GORMANmoved that leave be not given.
      Question put.
      The House divided: — Ayes 61; Noes None.—(Div. List, No. 254.)
      Main Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY.

      SUPPLY [15TH JULY].
      Postponed Resolution [reported 16th July], considered.
      Resolution again read as follows: —
      "That a sum, not exceeding £434,091, 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 Commissioners of National Education in Ireland."
      Resolution agreed to.

      SUPPLY [5TH AUGUST].
      Postponed Resolution [reported 6th August], considered.
      Resolution again read as follows:—
      "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. MELDONmoved to reduce the Vote by £315, the salary of one of the

      1611
      clerks in the Office. The circumstances under which he removed the reduction had, he said, been discussed in Committee; but no division taken. In the year 1875, one of the first-class clerks in the Office for the Registration of Deeds in Ireland died, and no one had been appointed to fill the vacancy. The fact was that faith had been broken with the officers of this Department in a most unprecedented manner. In 1859, in consequence of some rearrangement of the Office, a circular was issued to all the clerks in it, pointing out that they would be entitled to promotion from class to class according as any dropped off. That was to say, a second-class clerk would, in the event of there being a vacancy in the first grade, get it, and the third-class man would go to the ranks of the second. In 1875, one of the first-class clerks died, a second-class clerk was recommended for his place, and he applied for it. But he was informed that some re-arrangements were then being made in the Office, and the Treasury would not appoint him. The officers being exceeding sore at this, put themselves in communication with the Secretary to the Treasury, by means of Members of Parliament, and asked for the usual promotion. Ho said they were not entitled to the promotion, but only to an additional increment year by year to their salaries. This certainly was a peculiar view of matters, because the Act regulating the Registration of Deeds Office provided that there should be a certain number of clerks of different classes to be fixed by the Treasury Minute. The Treasury did fix that number of clerks, and they provided that there should be 10 of the first class; but now there were only nine. At first, in the Estimates, the Treasury only put down nine clerks; but on looking at the Act of Parliament and the Minute, they found they had no right to reduce the number, and, therefore, it became necessary to take a Vote for 10. But yet no additional first-class clerk had been taken on, and no one was filling the office at all. The clerks were complaining very seriously of this. It was said in 1875, as a reason for not giving the promotion, that new arrangements were about to be made whereby the Treasury would be enabled to dispense with the services of additional clerks; but up to the present no change had taken place,
      1612
      the result being that the Office was under-manned, and complaints on one side of delay, and on the other side of want of staff. But there was another matter on which he must ask some explanation. Since 1875, only nine first-class clerks had been paid; but the Estimates were framed for 10. Where did this£315 go? It was voted but not paid, and instead of the same amount being restored to the Treasury, £175 or £179 was accounted for. He could not understand what had become of the difference year by year, and he wanted an explanation why money not paid was not returned to the Exchequer?
      Amendment proposed, to leave out "£14,672," in order to insert "14,357." —(Mr. Meldon.)
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)hoped the hon. and learned Member would not think it necessary to press his Motion to a division. The re-organization of the Office of Registration of Deeds in Ireland had been under consideration for a considerable time past; and at the present moment a Royal Commission, of which the hon. and learned Member was one, and presided over by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, was inquiring into the matter. Under those circumstances, there naturally must be considerable hesitation in making new appointments until the new arrangement was arrived at. As to the allegation that the money voted was not expended or not returned, that matter should be inquired into.
      MR. M. BROOKShoped his hon. and learned Friend would persist in his Amendment, and take the sense of the Committee upon a very unfair proceeding. The fact was that three or four years ago a change in the administration of the Registration of Deeds Office was suggested, with a view to lessening the number of clerks. Nothing had as yet been done; but he was convinced it was because of the importunity of the officers who would have suffered by the change that the promotion had been discontinued. Due allowance should be made for the feelings of the clerks in this Office. Their interest, in the eyes of highly-salaried officials, might be of small moment; but what was a small matter to heads of Departments was of great importance to the persons themselves, and who were greatly damaged by the neg-

      1613
      lect to carry out the arrangements under which they were appointed. There was no other mode of obtaining justice for them than by bringing the matter before Parliament, so as to get Parliamentary opinion to bear upon the officials.
      Question put, "That £14,672 stand part of the Resolution."
      Major O'Gorman was appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes, but no Member appearing as a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

      SUPPLY.—REPORT.
      Resolutions [7th August] reported.
      The First Resolution being read a second time;
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Question put.
      Major O'Gorman was appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes, but no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared the Ayes had it.
      Second Resolution postponed.
      The Third Resolution being read a second time;
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Question put.
      Major O'Gorman was appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes, but no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared the Ayes had it.
      The Fourth Resolution being read a second time;
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Question put.
      Major O'Gorman was appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes, but no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared the Ayes had it.
      The Fifth Resolution being read a second time;
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
      Major O'Gorman was appointed one of the Tellers for the Noes, but no Member appearing to be a second Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared the Ayes had it.
      Subsequent Resolutions agreed to.
      Postponed Resolution to be considered To-morrow.

      PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS AND FINES (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 253.]
      (Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. J. Lowther.)

      COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      THE O'CONOR DONexpressed a hope that the Bill would not be proceeded with. Notwithstanding its distinctive title, it was a sort of omnibus Bill; and, as it was only recently introduced, it ought not to be pressed at that hour —after 3 A.M.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)hoped the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) would not object to the Bill proceeding. It was really desired by those whom its passing would affect. It effected divers improvements in administrative details, and unless he could proceed with it now, he feared the Order would have to be discharged. In Committee he intended to accept Amendments, and this would necessitate a Report to be taken, and the hon. Member for Roscommon could consider in the interval whether he would desire to put any Amendment on the Paper.
      MR. MELDONsaid, that the Bill was obviously intended to benefit Petty Sessions clerks; but owing to its wording it might be worked against their interests. As, however, the Attorney General for Ireland was willing to accept an Amendment of his which would make the meaning of the Bill perfectly clear, he would not object to its consideration now in Committee.
      Bill considered in Committee, and reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
      THE O'CONOR DONgave Notice, that on the Motion to consider the Bill as amended, he would move that it be considered that day three months.

      NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1876–7.
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committe.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed,

      (1.) "That it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account, for the year ended 31st March 1877, that the "balances unexpended in respect of certain Votes for Navy Services for the said year amounted to the sum of £166,546 6s. 6d.

      (2.) "That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of £129,508 12 s. 3d., out of the said total sum of £166,546 6s. 10 d., to provide for the expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Navy Services for the said year.

      (3.) "That the said application he sanctioned.

      (4.) "That it appears by the Army Appropriation Account, for the year ended 31st March 1877, that the balances unexpended in respect of certain Votes for Army Services for the said year amounted to the sum of £370,434 10 s. 7d., and that the sum of £247,548 17 s. 1d. has been realised in excess of the estimated Appropriations in aid, amounting together to the total sum of £617,983 7s. 8d. (That the sum of £2,714 10 s. having been disallowed by a Committee of this House from the expenditure recorded in the said account, the gross surplus thereon is increased from the said sum of £617,983 7s. 8d. to £620,697 17 s. 8d.)

      (5.) "That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of £476,728 1s. 10 d. out of the said surplus to provide for the expenditure incurred in excess of certain other Votes for Army Services for the said year.

      (6.) "That the said application be sanctioned."

      MR. MONKasked if any Report had been laid on the Table with regard to the appropriation or misappropriation of the balances of the Votes proposed to be dealt with in the Resolution now before the Committee? Last Session a promise was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a Committee should be appointed to consider those cases in which the excess of Votes which ought to have been returned into the Treasury had been appropriated to other purposes. So far as he had been able to understand the Resolution read, it appeared that this was one of the excesses in point. He thought there should, therefore, be more information given before the Committee assented to the appropriation of this money.
      SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he was aware that what the hon. Member stated did happen last year; but he was only recently made aware of this. Unfortunately, on account of the Ministerial changes, the matter had been overlooked until after the Public Accounts Committee, to whom it was intended to refer the subject, had closed their business. He would take care that it should be in future referred to that Committee.
      MR. MONKasked for explanations regarding the sum mentioned in the Resolution.
      MR. W. H. SMITHexplained that the Accounts themselves had. been examined by the Public Accounts Committee, who had gone through the items on both sides. A less sum was sometimes paid under certain of the Army and Navy Votes than had been provided by Vote, and a larger sum had been spent on some other items than the Votes had provided for. In order to avoid the inconvenience of asking for more, in the whole, than was necessary, it was provided by Act of Parliament that the Treasury might authorize an expenditure in excess of the Vote when there were savings under another Vote in the same Department, and that the savings should be transferred to meet that excess. It was understood, however, that the subject should be taken into consideration by the Public Accounts Committee.
      MR. MONKsaid, the principle was radically wrong, and he was astonished that the subject, "having been brought before the House last Session" and a promise having been given that it should not occur again, the Government should have recurred to the old principle.
      MR. DILLWYNcondemned the principle of these transferences.
      MAJOR NOLANbelieved that this mode of dealing with public accounts was one of the gravest accusations brought against Napoleon the Third's Government, and had much to do with the downfall of his dynasty.
      MR. DILLWYNremarked that the sum involved seemed larger than it had ever been. He was sorry to trouble the Committee, but he must take the opinion of the Committee on this subject. No satisfactory explanation had been given.
      SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, however objectionable the practice

      1617
      might be, it was at present sanctioned by Act of Parliament. He had stated that he was prepared to bring the subject before the Public Accounts Committee next Session.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, if it was not necessary to pass that Resolution tonight he would move that Progress be reported. If £250,000 could be transferred in this way, the control of Parliament over the finances would be seriously diminished.
      SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was necessary to pass the Resolution to-night, otherwise the introduction of the Appropriation Bill would be delayed.
      MR. DILLWYNsaid, if the system were sanctioned by Act of Parliament, it seemed as if hon. Members were asked to vote what they had no choice of declining to vote. On the assurance that this would not occur again, he would withdraw his opposition.
      Resolutions agreed to; to be reported To-morrow.

      WAYS AND MEANS.
      Considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, the sum of £21,556,807 7s. 5d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
      Resolution to he reported To-morrow.

      SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 215.]
      (The O'Conor Don, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Corry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)

      THIRD READING.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read the third time upon Saturday."—(The O' Conor Don.)
      MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was sorry to move an Amendment. It was quite unprecedented that the Government should give a Saturday Sitting to private Members; and from the answer of Mr. Speaker to a question put to him by me to-day, the House will have heard that the course now to be acquiesced in by
      1618
      the Government is most unusual. Surely it will be a bad precedent to set, when the Government of the day fixes on a Saturday in order further to facilitate the passing of a measure introduced by a private Member. In his opinion, Saturday should never be taken, except when the Government were very anxious that the Session should close, and then that Public Business only should be taken. He would move that the Bill be taken next Tuesday, when many Irish Members who would come over for the Intermediate Education Bill on Monday, might be present. For the last two or three days it had been rumoured that the supporters of the Bill were privately promised Saturday for the third reading. He hoped there was no truth in this, for the opponents of the Bill had no knowledge of it, and a mine had been sprung upon them.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Saturday," in order to insert the words "Tuesday next." — (Mr. Onslow.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'Saturday' stand part of the Question."
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has observed, that the course now taken is somewhat unusual; but the opposition to this Bill, and what happened with regard to it, is also unusual. I must briefly remind the House of the facts. When it was introduced at the beginning of the Session, it was stated by the Government that they would be prepared to facilitate the Bill passing its second reading, and that they would, in Committee, move certain Amendments. If those Amendments were accepted, they intimated that they would give facilities, such as a Government can give, for carrying the Bill through its further stages. The Government did what they could to redeem these promises. The Bill was opposed in a manner which must be fresh in the recollection of the House, and which certainly caused great inconvenience. On every possible occasion the Bill was discussed and divided upon; but it was carried through its different stages by large majorities. In these circumstances, it would be un-business-like to allow all the time so ex-

      1619
      pended to be entirely thrown away; and, perhaps, to make the House seem to stultify itself. Moreover, the time has now arrived when, if the Bill is to leave the House with any chance of passing the House of Lords at all, it is necessary that it should be read a third time this week; and, under these circumstances, the Government think it necessary to redeem the pledge given at the beginning of the Session, and acknowledged since from time to time, of giving facilities for passing the Bill. It has been impossible to take it in the last week or two; but the Government have decided, before the close of the Session, to give the House another opportunity of considering the Bill on the third reading. Saturday has been fixed between those interested in the Bill and myself. It was, however, absolutely impossible to fix, until the Sitting to-day, what should be done.
      MR. M. BROOKSsaid, there could be no doubt that the Government had given a sort of pledge to facilitate the passing of the Bill, and there could be equally little doubt that they had honourably fulfilled that promise. But they had adopted a peculiar course in giving a private Member a Saturday at the end of the Session for passing a Bill such as this; and he hoped, remembering how much more than was necessary they had fulfilled their engagements, that the Government would abandon their intention, and not call the House together, not only for Saturday, but very probably for Sunday too. Besides, Monday would be a peculiarly fit day for the Bill to come on, as almost every Irish Member would be present that day, and a true criterion of the feeling of the Irish Members on the matter would thus be obtained.
      DR. O'LEARYthought the most extraordinary thing was that a Sunday Closing Bill should, for the first time in the history of the House of Commons, be the means of keeping that House open on a Sunday. Those most anxious for the closing of public-houses on Sunday were most anxious to keep the House of Commons open that day—atleast, he had heard it was intended to sit through it, if necessary, in order to pass the Bill. Would not such a course as that be Sunday opening? He should like to know, too, if the House sat on Sunday, whether the Members' refreshment bar would be kept open or not? Every fa-
      1620
      cility had been given by the Government for passing the Bill; but owing to the persistency of Irish Members who knew the opinions of the people, it had not yet got through all its stages.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
      House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'clock in the morning.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Marriages (Fiji) * (195).
Second Reading — Locomotives on Highways (Scotland) (190).
Committee — Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3) (128).
Committee—Report—British Museum (Transfer of Collection) * (183); Commons Regulation (Expenses)* (181); Statute Law Revision (Ireland)* (185).
Report—Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * (193).
Third Reading—Admiralty and War Office (Retirement of Officers)* (176); Highways* (192), and passed.
Royal Assent — Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne (Establishment) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 46]; Consolidated Fund (No. 4) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 45]; Public Health (Ireland) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 52]; County of Hertford [41 & 42 Vict. c. 50]; Police (Expenses) Act Continuance [41 & 42 Vict. c. 36]; Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 35]; Innkeepers [41 & 42 Vict. c. 38]; Truro Chapter [41 & 42 Vict. c. 44]; Weights and Measures [41 & 42 Vict. c. 49]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 37]; Prison Authorities Act, 1874, Amendment [41 & 42 Vict. c. 40]; Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers' Expenses) (Scotland) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 41]; Freshwater Fish Protection [41 & 42 Vict. c. 39]; Marriage Preliminaries (Scotland) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 43]; Commutation of Tithes [41 & 42 Vict. c. 42]; Roads and Bridges (Scotland) [41 & 42 Vict, c. 51]; Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) [41 & 42 Vict. c. 48]; Elders Widows' Fund [41 & 42 Vict. c. 47]; Local Government Provisional Order (Darenth Valley) [41 & 42 Vict. c. ccxi]; Corrib (Galway) River [41 & 42 Vict. c. ccxii]; Epping Forest [41 & 42 Vict, c. coxiii].

LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS (SCOTLAND) BILL—(No. 190.)
(The Lord President.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONmoved that the Bill be now read a second time.
LORD DENMANsaid, he had known many narrow escapes from accidents in agricultural districts in Scotland. He might observe that the alteration by Clause 4 of this Bill of the paragraph numbered "Secondly" of Section 3 of the Locomotive Act, 1865, was likely to be useful, as there would be no necessity for anyone to go in advance with a flag in order to give warning of the approach of a locomotive; because paragraph 5 of the same section required it to be stopped immediately on any person holding up his hand—of course, this only applied to day travelling—whilst, if any accident should happen, the 12th clause of the same Act especially reserved the right to damages in respect of any injury in consequence of the use of a locomotive. He believed, however, that their Lordships would agree with him that prevention was better than cure, and he would venture to suggest that the road

1499
authorities should have power, not only to stop locomotives on highways for eight consecutive hours, but for such number of hours in summer as would make it necessary for the locomotive to travel almost entirely by night, and at other seasons of the year according to the duration of the night.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No, 3) BILL—(Nos. 128–130.)
(The Lord Henniker.)

COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
LORD HENNIKERexplained that it was a Bill to confirm two Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Tramways Act relating to the Glasgow and Ibrox tramways and the Wrexham district tramways. By the Amendment he was about to propose to the Committee, all the clauses which related to the use of steam power upon tramways in regard to the Glasgow and Ibrox tramways were struck out, while the second Provisional Order, which related to the Wrexham tramways, had been abandoned. The other Provisional Order—the Glasgow and Ibrox tramways —would be amended in so far that the use of steam would not be allowed; but for the sake of making an experiment, the use of what was termed the Scott-Moncreiff system, which was a motive power supplied by compressed air, would be permitted. The operation of this confirming Bill, when amended as he now proposed, would be confined to two years. Their Lordships would see, therefore, that the scheme was a purely experimental one; and he hoped, by the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the construction of the tramway would be so far advanced that the Select Committee that was proposed to be appointed to inquire into the subject of the use of mechanical power and steam on tramways would have the advantage of the experience gained by the working of this Scott-Moncreiff system before they made their Report. No other tramway could so well supply information on this subject as this one. The Provisional Order for the construction of this
1500
tramway was granted last year; and, therefore, if it were thought desirable not to allow the continuance of the Scott-Moncreiff system after the lapse of two years, they could use animal power only.
THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, that he had no objection to the passing of the Bill with the Amendments made by the noble Lord; but, at the same time, he confessed that if the matter had been brought before him, he would not have assented to it, because it gave an advantage to a particular Bill which all the others which had been dealt with did not possess; and, considering that they were dealing with private undertakings, he thought that they ought to be treated all alike, whether it was proposed to propel the cars by means of compressed air or not.
Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD TRAINING SHIP.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL FORTESCUEinquired of the Lord President of the Council, Whether it was true that the London School Board had bought a ship for training purposes; and, if so, whether he could inform the House what was the estimated cost of the purchase and fitting up of that ship, and what were the numbers and salaries of the staff employed in it, and what arrangements were proposed to be made about the meals of the boys to be trained on board. The noble Earl said, that a report had reached him that a ship had been purchased at the expense of the ratepayers, which he thought ought not to have been the case, because the School Board seemed to forget that their rate was levied upon one kind of property alone. He was not disposed to join in a too general condemnation of the course which had been pursued by the London School Board, because he believed that since its establishment it had done a great deal of good; although he doubted the prudence of some of the steps it had taken, and entertained no doubt whatever of the too great costliness of others. What he desired to do was to ascertain for the information of the already heavily burdened ratepayers of

  1501
  the Metropolis, whether the London School Board had done anything of the kind; and, if so, exactly what it was? He thought it desirable that they should have some details respecting the ship alleged to have been purchased. He must confess he viewed with some jealousy the proceedings of school boards in some parts of the country. For instance, in Bradford, a particular class of school had been established for boys of a more advanced age than usual, and he thought that, in some degree, the result had been inadequate. He would not, however, attempt to raise any discussion on that point at present, and he merely alluded to it to show that there was a disposition on the part of school boards generally, with reference to expenditure, that required some watchfulness on the part of the public and by Parliament. With respect to this particular purchase, he concluded that inasmuch as the boys would be trained on board, they could hardly land for the purpose of taking their meals. In other training ships, the boys had their meals and slept on board. He could hardly believe that that was contemplated by the school boards in the case of boys who were neither paupers nor in receipt of charitable assistance.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the Question which had been put to him by the noble Earl was one in respect of which he was unable to give him any information at present, further than he believed it was the fact that the London School Board had made such a purchase. It was not a matter within the Educational Department of the Privy Council; because, in making this purchase, the London School Board had acted under the 15th section of the 39 & 40 Vict., in which it was provided that in the event of any such purchase being contemplated, it must be made with the sanction and approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEsaid, that the case was really one of great importance, and he was sorry that his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) had not asked the Home Office for a little further information. If he was really responsible for it, he pointed out that the education of boys who ought to be maintained by their parents in the training ship was really the introduction of an expense to
  1502
  the country at large which had not hitherto been incurred, and was, therefore, quite a novelty. If this was the beginning of anew system, he considered it deserving of serious inquiry.
  EARL FORTESCUEthen gave Notice that he would put a Question to the noble Lord who represented the Home Office in their Lordships' House on this subject to-morrow.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock,