Sitting of 30 May 1878

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, Further Vote on Account, £2,040,710—Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolution [May 29] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Drumcondra, Clonliffe, and Glasnevin Township, considered as amended.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Tenant Right (Ireland) [31]—R. P.
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 3) *; Exchequer Bonds (No. 2) * [186]; Conway Bridge (Composition of Debt) * [150]; Public Health (Ireland) * [1–199]; Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Portsmouth) * [179]; Railway Returns (Continuous Brakes) * [185]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) [44].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings) * [162]; Monuments (Metropolis) (No. 2) * [140], and passed.
Withdrawn—Companies (Foreign Shareholders) * [118].

QUESTIONS.
  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON—THE COMMISSION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When proposed Commission to inquire into the City Parochial Charities will be appointed; and, whether, if it is necessary that an Act of Parliament should be passed before such Commission is appointed, he can inform the House when the Bill will be introduced?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the matter had not been lost sight of. The necessary instructions had been given to the draftsman to prepare a Bill, which would be brought in as soon as possible.

    LUNACY COMMISSION (SCOTLAND)— THE VACANCY.—QUESTION.
    MR. M'LARENasked the Lord Advocate, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to avail themselves of the present vacancy in the office of one of the Lunacy Commissioners in Scotland to reduce the cost of that department by abolishing the office, or otherwise, as referred to in the Report of the Commission on Civil Departments (Scotland), 1870, following on the evidence to that effect of the Lord Justice Clerk and other parties?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE: Sir, I believe it will be found absolutely necessary to fill up the present vacancy in one of the Chief Commissionerships. The Report referring to this question

    927
    makes no recommendation upon this subject, but contains a statement made by the Lord Advocate Moncreiff to the effect that it was his intention to abolish the office; but I may remind the hon. Member that after that Report was given in, a vacancy occurred in one of these Commissionerships, and the then Home Secretary (Mr. Bruce), with the advice of the Lord Advocate (Mr. Young), resolved to fill up the vacancy, and did so. That was challenged, I believe, by the hon. Member, but the Home Secretary said it was absolutely necessary for the administration of the Lunacy Laws, and, I believe, the duties attendant on the administration of these laws are more onerous at the present day than they were in July 1870.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND—OPENING OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the accounts of the opening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland by the High Commissioners with a Royal salute and a body of horse, foot, and artillery; and if he will consider whether the time has not come when the practice might, with advantage, be discontinued?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I think, Sir, that the usual forms and ceremonies accompanying the visit of the Lord High Commissioners, as representing Her Majesty, were observed on the occasion referred to, and I see no reason why they should be discontinued.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—ADULTERATION OF BEER AT MAIDSTONE.—QUESTION.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether there is any foundation for a report that several casks of beer brewed at Maidstone have been examined by the Excise authorities have been found to be adulterated and condemned and destroyed?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, I have made all the inquiries in my power relative to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot find that there is the slightest foundation for it.

PERSIA—VISIT OF THE SHAH.

  QUESTION.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Shah of Persia intends to visit this country, and, if so, whether his visit will be of a public character; and whether in that event Her Majesty's Government have in contemplation any arrangement for his reception?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, I have to state that it is the intention of the Shah of Persia to visit this country. The visit will not be a public one; on the contrary, it is expressly desired by His Majesty that his visit shall be incognito, and it is the wish of His Majesty to inspect personally the many institutions and manufactories in this country, and study them in detail. It is the intention of the Government that His Majesty's desire shall be respected.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE CAPE—TELE- GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL MUREasked, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the want of Telegraphic Communication between this Country and the Cape of Good Hope; and, whether any steps are in contemplation with a view to such communication?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, recent events have specially directed the attention of the Government to the want of telegraphic communication between this country and the Cape of Good Hope; and, looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, and the absence of any prospect that within a reasonable time any communication would be opened by private enterprise, we would be prepared to give our favourable consideration to a proposal for aiding in some form or another in the establishment of such telegraphic communication, provided the several Colonies interested agreed also to help in the work. Despatches to this effect were addressed by me shortly after my accession to my present Office to the Governors of the several Colonies affected, and, should the replies be favourable, I shall lose no time in inviting the attention of my Colleagues to a consideration

  929
  of the details of the subject, in order that the best plan may be adopted to carry out the proposal, which I think is of the greatest importance to the interests of the Empire.

THE TURKISH LOAN OF 1855.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DODSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the sum of £77,448, which Her Majesty's Government were obliged to provide for interest and commission in consequence of the default of the Turkish Government to pay the dividend due in February last on the Turkish Guaranteed Loan of 1855, specially charged upon the Egyptian tribute, has been received in full, or to any and what amount, from the Turkish or Egyptian Government; whether the French Government has paid one moiety thereof; and, whether he can say when the Correspondence with the above-named Governments on the subject, which he informed the House on 19th March should be laid before Parliament as soon as it was in a fit state, will be presented?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry to say, Sir, that the bulk of the sum of £77,448 has not yet been paid. The Porte gave instructions to the Khedive to pay the amount that was due, but the amount received from the Khedive has been somewhat less than £8,000. Why a further amount has not yet been paid I am not in a position to say, but communications are still going on with the Egyptian Government on the subject. The French Government have been advised by Her Majesty's Government of the position of affairs, and they have recognized their liability to pay one moiety. The French Government are prepared to pay the moiety on Her Majesty's Government sending in an account; but as we have been hoping to receive a further remittance from the Egyptian Government we have not yet put the claim in proper shape, and that, of course, will be a matter which will cause no delay between ourselves and the French Government. I am afraid that as the Correspondence has not yet been completed, it will not be advisable to lay it upon the Table of the House.
  Afterwards,
  MR. DODSONsaid, he wished to ask a further Question, of which he had not given the right hon. Gentleman Notice. It was, Whether the last instalment of the interest due on the Suez Canal Shares had been paid by the Khedive in full, and when the payment had been made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am afraid I cannot name the date, but it was paid in full.

  SCOTLAND—THE BOTANIC GARDENS, EDINBURGH.—QUESTION.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has received a Memorial from the Students of Botany in the Royal Botanic Gardens of Edinburgh, complaining that nearly 400 students have to study in a class-room which is only seated for 230; and, whether the Government intend to provide adequate accommodation for the public, which has shown its desire to pursue their studies in these public gardens?
  MR. GERARD NOEL: Sir, a Memorial has been received from the Students of Botany in the Royal Botanic Gardens; but I am sorry to say that, owing to more pressing requirements, it has been found impracticable to take any steps to improve the accommodation in the class-rooms at Edinburgh. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that when the Estimates for 1879–80 are being prepared, the question shall be carefully considered.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'CLERY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the forthcoming debate on University Education in Ireland, Whether the Government intend to hold a Morning Sitting on Friday?
  MR. BUTT: I think this Question might have been left to be put by myself or the hon. Member for Roscommon, who has charge of the Motion. I would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to interfere with the ordinary Sitting to-morrow. My hon. Friend has been good enough in my absence to submit this subject to the

  931
  House. It is a subject exciting a great deal of attention in Ireland, and a full discussion of it is very desirable. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted to a deputation that waited upon him the importance of the subject, and I would press upon him that the discussion should be allowed to go on to-morrow. No one knows, better than I do the difficulties which have been thrown in the way of the right hon. Gentleman. Still I trust to receive an assurance that to-morrow's Sitting will not be interfered with.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I can assure the House and both the hon. Members who have just addressed me, that I am fully conscious of the importance attached to the question of Irish University education, and I should be most desirous, so far as I could, to provide an opportunity for the discussion of the question. I am, therefore, most anxious that I may not be driven to the necessity of asking the House to meet here to-morrow morning. I wish, however, to state candidly to the House, what the position of Her Majesty's Government is in respect to the progress of Public Business. We have already had six nights' discussion of the Civil Service Estimates, and have been able to get through only 33 Votes. There are up wards of 100 Votes still remaining, and if we proceed with them with similar progress, we should require 18 nights to complete them. There are only 18 Mondays and Thursdays between this and the 1st of August inclusive, and if we obtain no other days than those for discussion of these Estimates, progressing in the same degree, we should find the whole time of the Government taken up upon the consideration of these Votes alone, making no allowance for the discussion of questions relating to the Army and Navy, to our foreign affairs, and to the various other subjects of legislation which must necessarily engage the attention of the Government. I hope, then, that the House will see that it is not owing to any grudging spirit on our part that we feel ourselves obliged to make stipulations for being afforded further facilities for the progress of the Government Business. I repeat, then, what I have already said, that if we can make sufficient progress to-night in the Estimates, I shall not ask for a Morning Sitting to-morrow. I am fully aware
  932
  the Irish Members take particular interest in the issue of the discussion upon the Irish University question and the Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and that we must be prepared for a considerable amount of discussion upon that question. I have, therefore, so arranged this evening that, although I shall ask for a Vote on account—a course I hoped to have avoided—the Government will not include in that Vote any item relating to the Queen's Colleges in Ireland. I will, however, fix Supply for Monday next again, and then take the main Vote for them. I hope hon. Members interested in the subject will see that they will thus be afforded a sufficient opportunity of discussing that Vote. I propose to take a Vote on account this evening for all the Services exclusive of the Queen's Colleges, and then to proceed with Class III., which relates to Law and Justice, the earlier Votes in which do not particularly affect Ireland, so that it is not likely they will render necessary any full discussion on the part of the Irish Members especially. That is the position in which we stand. If we find to-night that we are able to make a reasonable progress in our Estimates, we shall not have a Morning Sitting to-morrow. If not, I shall certainly be under the necessity of asking the House to grant us a Morning Sitting to-morrow.
  MR. A. MOORE: Does the hon. Member for Roscommon intend to proceed with the Sunday Closing Bill to-night?
  THE O'CONOR DON: It is my intention to proceed with it to-night.
  MR. EYTONasked Mr. Attorney General, When he intends to proceed with the Bar Education and Discipline Bill.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER),in reply, said, he intended to proceed with this Bill at the earliest opportunity he could obtain, which, he feared would not be until after Whitsuntide.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

DISCUSSIONS ON THE ESTIMATES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, although he considered it inconvenient, he did not wish to raise any objection to a Vote being taken on account; but he must protest against the tone in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken with respect to the delay which had been occasioned by the discussions on the Votes in Committee of Supply. It could not be denied that there had been some obstruction, but the greater part of the discussions, so far as he had heard them, were, he believed, really bonâ fide, and many of the criticisms of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) were, in his opinion, very able and very much to the point. The Estimates were assuming enormous proportions, and it was, he maintained, essential to the public interests; that they should be fully discussed, in order that it might be seen whether the charge on the public could not be reduced; and with the view to secure that object, as well as to afford the Government reasonable facilities for the conduct of the Business of the House, he thought it might be well to appoint a Select Committee in the early part of each Session, to which the Estimates should be referred, and which should make a Report to the Committee of Supply on each class as it came up.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he might not be out of Order in referring to the reply the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to give to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) in regard to the Irish University Bill and the proposed Morning Sitting. On Tuesday last, he had ventured to predict that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer took a Morning Sitting he would get no Supply. His reason for that was that the Irish Estimates were the next Business, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been permitted to make considerable progress in Supply, these Estimates would have given rise to considerable discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now skipped over these Irish Estimates and put down Class III., in which he felt very little interest, until the 14th Vote, relating to "Convict Establishments," was reached. It happened, therefore, that by the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so far as he was concerned, he
  934
  should be able to facilitate the obtaining of Supply without any sacrifice of what he considered his duty. As regarded the general question of the impediments offered to the Government in the way of obtaining Supply, it had unfortunately happened that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had so frequently expressed his opinion on the conduct of Members who had criticized—he would not say opposed—the Votes in Supply, had been almost invariably absent from the House when the discussions on Supply were taken. The right hon. Gentleman must, therefore, have formed his opinions on the conduct of hon. Members on the reports—more or less vague—which had reached him from hon. Members who might have been equally ill-informed with himself. On one or two occasions in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer entered the House when Votes in Supply were being considered, they had been engaged in an unfortunate squabble of a personal character, which had been in every case created by some English Member who had not been present during the evening, and who, thinking that the time of the House was being wasted, got up in a flurry, and made charges of a disagreeable kind. That was the experience from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, when he talked of the way in which Supply had been dealt with. He would submit to the right hon. Gentleman, as a fair-minded man, that if he wished to constitute himself a judge of others, he should, at least, sit in the House while Supply was being taken. If he could not, why should he speak in this rash way of the conduct of Members who had been in the House all the time that Supply was being taken? By far the greater amount of time in these cases was wasted in unseemly personal squabbles. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The observations of the hon. Member, imputing misconduct to hon. Members of the House, and stating that personal squabbles are carried on in this House, which are not corrected, are unbecoming, and I must call upon the hon. Member to be more careful in his expressions.
  MR. PARNELL: But they certainly seemed to me to be personal squabbles.
  MR. SPEAKER: If personal squabbles occur in this House, it is the duty of the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case

  935
  may be, to call to Order Members who are guilty of them.
  The hon. Member is not entitled to say that personal squabbles occur without their being corrected.
  MR. PARNELLreplied, that he did not say that personal squabbles occurred without their being corrected. On the contrary, the Chairman had very frequently corrected these things. He ventured to suggest to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury at the commencement of the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates what the effect would be if that discussion which
  it was the duty of hon. Members to give them was even attempted, and his predictions had been verified. At the present moment, hon. Members who ventured to discuss the items of the Estimates were liable to an amount of ill-feeling which required more than ordinary courage to encounter. He would suggest that before next Session the hon. Baronet should consider the desirability of referring the whole of these Estimates to a Committee upstairs; and he believed, if a Committee had the opportunity of going through the items calmly and without heat, and calling the heads of Departments and others before them, they might reduce the Estimates by £5,000,000, or even £10,000,000, without any detriment to the public service; but, on the contrary, to its decided advantage. On the question why he, an Irish Member, should remain in the House and discuss Scotch and English Estimates, he might say that for some time he had confined his exertions to supporting measures promoted for the benefit of Ireland, which were, however, voted down by large majorities of English and Scotch Members, who frequently had not even listened to the arguments that had been used. He saw, then, that he was simply wasting his time, and he accordingly turned his attention to the Estimates, and endeavoured to check extravagance and stop sinecures, in the hope that he might in this way do some small good to those who paid taxes in Ireland. He was very well satisfied with the results that had attended his exertions since he had been in the House. He was sorry that the House had appeared, from time to time, to misapprehend his intentions and desires; but he was perfectly willing to live down the misapprehensions of the House of Commons, and he believed
  936
  that it would some day admit that it had misunderstood him.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am sure the House must feel very sorry to hear that the hon. Member considers himself a personne incompris, and that the services he has rendered to us have not been appreciated. I am certain that the general feeling of the House will be not to raise any personal discussion. What we meet for here is to discharge the Business of the country, not to discuss the merits of individual Members, or whether their action is or is not justifiable. I venture to apologize to the House for my own absence occasionally when the House was in Committee of Supply. I try to be here as much as I can. All that I have seen of the conduct of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury convinces those who have been here that he is perfectly competent for the work. I venture to request that the House will be good enough to abstain from unnecessary digressions upon questions of a personal character, and that, as we seem to be tolerably agreed, the course suggested will be pursued. I have to thank my hon. Friends here, and on the opposite side, who did not persevere with Motions of which they had given Notice on going into Committee of Supply. At the same time, in the remarks I made, I did not all wish to intimate any objection to the hon. Members taking the proper and usual privilege which belongs to Members of this House to raise questions upon going into Committee of Supply. I expressed a hope that, in whatever discussions occur before going into Committee of Supply, there would be some consideration for the general conduct of Public Business. If a large proportion of the time is spent in discussing one or two items, that may render it impossible to discuss other items which may be of greater or equal importance. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) spoke of the inconvenience of taking Votes on account, and he said that Votes on which discussions ought to be held are brought on late in the Session, and that discussion could not then arise. If a great deal of discussion occurs, we are driven to that necessity. With regard to the suggestion that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee, I will merely say that that is a large subject which I will

  937
  not discuss at the present moment. I hope the House will not allow itself on this occasion, and without due preparation, to be led off into a discussion on such a large and important question as that. I hope I have said nothing
  which can give occasion for a continuation of anything like a personal discussion. We have one object in view—namely, to proceed with the Public Business, and I hope it will be the general feeling of the House that we should now proceed with it.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it does not appear to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in any way responsible for the discussion which has just been raised. I did not understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering a Question which was put to him at an earlier period of the evening, to make any reflection whatever on the conduct of any Member of the House. All I understood him to do was to point out that, although there had been a considerable number of Sittings, very small progress had been made in voting Supply, and this made him propose a course which he admitted under ordinary circumstances would have been objectionable. For my own part, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have done otherwise than he has done. I hope that the advice given by the right hon. Gentleman may be accepted, and that the House will see that an undue amount of discussion on a limited number of Votes must inevitably, in the end, have the effect of hindering a fair and full discussion of the great body of the Estimates. Therefore, I trust we may be able to proceed without any unnecessary delay.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped the House would guard itself against running from one extreme to another. Money should not be voted away without seeing to its application. It was not a dignified course for the Government to say that they were at a standstill, and could not get along. They ought to adopt some means to enable them to do their Business, and there were various ways in which they could improve the present state of things, without interfering with a due amount of fair criticism, if they took the trouble to do so.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES ANDRE- VENUE DEPARTMENTS, FURTHER VOTE ON ACCOUNT.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  "(1.) That a further sum, not exceeding £2,040,710, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    Great Britain:—

    £

    Royal Palaces

    3,100

    Marlborough House

    500

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    9,750

    Houses of Parliament

    2,700

    Public Buildings

    10,800

    Furniture of Public Offices

    1,250

    Revenue Department Buildings

    15,650

    County Court Buildings

    3,700

    Metropolitan Police Courts

    1,250

    Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

    650

    New Courts of Justice, &c.

    10,000

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    11,100

    Science and Art Department Buildings

    1,250

    British Museum Buildings

    400

    Natural History Museum

    6,650

    Edinburgh University Buildings

    1,650

    Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

    1,250

    Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland) (2 months' further Vote)

    33,200

    Abroad:—

    Lighthouses Abroad

    1,000

    Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

    3,600

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
    Ireland:—

    £

    Lord Lieutenant's Household

    550

    Chief Secretary's Office, &c.

    2,200

    Charitable Donations and Bequest Office

    170

    Local Government Board

    10,600

    Public Works Office

    2,450

    Record Office

    500

    Registrar General's Office

    1,350

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    1,800

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    England:—

    £

    Law Charges

    6,050

    Criminal Prosecutions

    15,300

    Chancery Division, High Court of Justice

    14,800

    Queen's Bench, &c. Divisions, High Court of Justice

    5,250

    Probate, &c. Registries, High Court of Justice

    7,800

    939

    Admiralty Registry, High Court of Justice

    1,100

    Wreck Commission

    850

    Bankruptcy Court (London)

    3,150

    County Courts

    36,250

    Land Registry

    450

    Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

    1,200

    Metropolitan Police

    36,860

    Police, Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain

    350

    Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies

    36,850

    Prisons, England

    40,600

    County Prisons, &c. Great Britain (4 months' further Vote)

    18,400

    Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    2,100

    Scotland:—

    Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings

    5,600

    Courts of Law and Justice

    5,100

    Register House Departments

    3,000

    Prisons, Scotland

    6,750

    Ireland:—

    Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

    7,250

    Chancery Division, High Court of Justice

    3,300

    Queen's Bench, &c. Divisions, ditto

    2,350

    Land Judges' Offices, ditto

    900

    Probate, &c. Registries, ditto

    950

    Court of Bankruptcy

    800

    Admiralty Court Registry

    140

    Registry of Deeds

    1,600

    Registry of Judgments

    230

    Dublin Metropolitan Police (including Police Courts)

    11,500

    Constabulary

    90,850

    Prisons, Ireland

    12,300

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    530

    Magistrates and Miscellaneous Legal Charges

    5,450

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    England:—

    £

    Public Education (2 months' further Vote)

    358,200

    Science and Art Department (2 months' further Vote

    51,200

    British Museum

    9,400

    National Gallery

    950

    National Portrait Gallery

    170

    Learned Societies, &c., Great Britain and Ireland

    1,400

    London University

    900

    Deep Sea Exploring Expedition (Report)

    330

    Paris International Exhibition (2 months' further Vote)

    6,100

    Scotland:—

    Public Education (2 months' further Vote)

    82,900

    Board of Education

    200

    Universities, &c.

    1,500

    National Gallery

    170

    Ireland:—

    Public Education (2 months' further Vote)

    108,500

    Endowed Schools Commissioners

    60

    National Gallery

    200

    Royal Irish Academy

    200

    CLASS V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES.
    £

    Diplomatic Services (2 months' further Vote)

    33,500

    Consular Services (2 months' further Vote)

    41,400

    Colonies, Grants in Aid

    3,450

    Orange River Territory and St. Helena

    230

    Suez Canal (British Directors)

    130

    Suppression of the Slave Trade

    600

    Tonnage Bounties, &c.

    1,150

    CLASS VI.—SUPERANNUATION AND RE- TIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER PUR- POSES.
    £

    Superannuation and Retired Allowances (3 months' further Vote)

    110,800

    Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c. (3 months' further Vote)

    7,800

    Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad

    2,450

    Pauper Lunatics, Ireland (3 months' further Vote)

    21,000

    Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

    1,450

    Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

    350

    Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland

    340

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, SPECIAL, AND TEMPORARY OBJECTS.
    £

    Temporary Commissions

    1,800

    Miscellaneous Expenses

    750

    Total for Civil Services

    £1,374,610

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
    £

    Customs

    81,700

    Inland Revenue

    151,000

    Post Office

    276,100

    Post Office Packet Service

    64,400

    Post Office Telegraphs

    92,900

    Total for Revenue Departments

    £666,100

    Grand Total

    £2,040,710

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (2.) £54,505, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he had given Notice of opposition to the item for the London Bankruptcy Court; but he thought it would be more convenient if he brought up the subject on the second reading of the Bankruptcy Bill. His object in giving Notice to reduce the Estimates was to protest against the charge for that Court; but he would not bring the question forward now. He would reserve anything he had to say till the time he had mentioned.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there was an increase in the cost of criminal prosecutions of £4,500. He should like to know on what principle these prosecutions were conducted? He should like to know, also, if the cost of the prosecution in the Bradlaugh case was included in the Vote, and, if so, upon what principle that cost was incurred, as the offence was not a police offence?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that these prosecutions were conducted by the Solicitor to the Treasury at the instance of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The case was submitted for the consideration of the head of the Department before the Solicitor General took it up, and nothing was done without the approval of the head of the Department. In some cases, it was for the public interest that the prosecution should be conducted by the Solicitor to the Treasury, and in others, from the magnitude of the case, it was impossible for it to proceed unless it were taken up by Government.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKremarked that something might surely be done to curtail the length of these trials which often extended over 20 or 30 days. Surely the interminable speeches of counsel, for instance, could be cut down.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, the Government were not responsible for the Bradlaugh case. That was a prosecution by the City authorities, and the Government were in no way concerned in it. Undoubtedly, the detective case did last for a long time before the police magistrate, but that was not the fault of the prosecution. The counsel for the defence cross-examined the witnesses at enormous length, and so very much prolonged the proceedings. So far as he was aware, no time was wasted in these trials.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he was not alluding to the trial of the detectives, but to another case which was heard at the Old Bailey.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, he found that a clerk in these Estimates was paid £50 under one head, and £15 under another. He thought the Committee should put a stop to such a system. Would any man in business pay his clerks in such a way?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was found more advisable in cases like the one referred to, to select a clerk in the office, and let him do the extra work required. It was like a case where a clerk took charge of the office during the absence of its head, and received additional pay for that.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, under section B, head G, there was a charge of £500 as paid in rewards. He should like to know whether that was really all that was paid for rewards in connection with the administration of justice in this country? It seemed to him rather a small sum, considering the area over which the administration of justice extended in this country. He thought the amount must be supplemented by money from some other source.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, there was a constant tendency to increase in this Vote. The gentleman in the service of the Crown appeared to be too much for the Members of that House. For instance, they now paid large salaries to the Law Officers; but that did not seem to diminish the expenses of the Vote.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, formerly the Law Officers were paid by fees; but that had recently boon changed. The fees were now paid into the Exchequer, and the Law Officers received a salary. As to the Advocate General, he believed that an arrangement had also been come to recently with reference to that matter.
    MR. GORSTthought such an explanation would be exceedingly valuable if the hon. Baronet had told them how much the cash payments into the Exchequer had been; but, as it was, they did not know at all how they stood. As to the Advocate General, he should like to know if there had been an inquiry into the proceeds of his office, on which to base the salary?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the subject was one which had occupied

    943
    his personal attention since he had been in his present Office. The custom hitherto prevailing had been for each Department to pay its extra receipts into the Exchequer, and the amount had been explained in a note at the foot of the Vote. That amount was always very nearly accurate, but not always a guide for the future. Instead of that speculative amount, he thought it would be better, in future, so to arrange the accounts that the actual amount should appear in the Vote. Each Department would then show, on the face of its Estimate, what were its extra receipts as compared with its gross expenditure.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSwished, in justice to the Government, to bear his testimony to the fact that one item in the Vote had been increased from no fault of the Government, but entirely owing to the passage of a Bill through Parliament which was felt to remove a great and grievous hardship. The fact that the Queen's Proctor was at liberty to bring intervening suits in the Divorce Court, the costs of which, if they failed, were not liable to be paid by the Crown, was felt by both Houses of Parliament to be a system which should not be allowed to continue. The performance of the duties of the office by the Solicitor to the Treasury entailed a certain amount of extra expense in that Department.
    MR. GREGORYthought the permanent staff of the office too large, and trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would look into the matter. Twenty-seven appeared to him to be a large staff for the work which was done, but that number had been increased to 29. There was an item of £450 for writers alone.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £138,097, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
    MR. GORSTwished to ask a question of the Government, in reference to the item for the repayment to counties and boroughs for their criminal prosecutions. It would, no doubt, be in the recollection of the House, that prior to the present Government coming into Office, a reduction was made in the amount paid for the expenses of criminal prosecutions, which threw upon the ratepayers of the counties and boroughs a burden which they thought
    944
    an unjust one. Many Members of the present Government on that occasion distinguished themselves by the eloquence with which they brought this subject under the notice of the House. When they came into Office, one of the first things they did was to initiate a new system, by which, instead of repaying the counties and boroughs the actual cost incurred, they paid for the prosecutions which took place on a sort of computed average cost. This arrangement was followed by discussions in the House, in which it was pointed out that this rule, so far from removing, really perpetuated, the injustice which had been denounced, and that it inflicted on the counties and boroughs still greater losses. He had never seen a better instance than this of the power of the permanent officials. Here was a Government led by the officials in the Departments into doing the very thing they had denounced when in Opposition. This scheme was established for three years, and it was promised by the Government that the matter should be re-considered in the light of experience, and that a fair settlement of the question should be arrived at. But, under this average scheme, what was foretold had actually come to pass—the counties and boroughs had lost far more money than was lost under the unjust scale of the previous Government. Deputations from almost every county and borough in the Kingdom had waited on the Predecessor of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, and they had represented to him the loss which was incurred, and the unjust burdens which were laid upon the ratepayers by the operation of this scheme. He had the honour of being present at one of these deputations himself, and the hardship was admitted, the Secretary to the Treasury promising that the subject should receive the consideration of the Government, and that a fair settlement should be arrived at. He wished to ask the hon. Baronet whether, having had all these figures placed before him, and it having been proved that the counties and boroughs were mulcted in far greater sums than were entailed upon them under the previous scheme, the Government were prepared to propose any fresh arrangement for the next three years?
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, this was the second time the hon. and learned Member had brought this

    945
    question forward, and he earnestly hoped the Government would not give way. He could not agree that it was advisable to allow the counties and boroughs to make what arrangement they pleased in regard to criminal prosecutions. In his opinion, the Government was perfectly right in maintaining a check over this expenditure. It might, perhaps, be said that the auditor was not competent to perform the duties, but that was a question of administration, and it would not be difficult to find someone who was; but he appealed to the Government to maintain the present system.
    MR. WHITWELLthought his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) had somewhat misunderstood the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Gorst), who did not so much wish that these charges should be increased, as to know whether it was the intention of the Government to keep to the old average. He knew several counties in which the average was by no means a fair basis for succeeding years; and, for his part, he should be much better pleased to see things go on as they were before, than to see the average principle maintained.
    MR. D. DAVIESasked how the increase of £700 in the travelling expenses of Clerks of Assizes was to be accounted for?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that a few years ago an important Commission was appointed to inquire into the working of the administrative departments of the Courts of Justice. That Commission reported in 1874; but it was said that, owing to the then recent passing of the Judicature Act, it was not thought desirable to make the changes which that Commission recommended until there had been an opportunity for fully considering the effect of the new Act. He could not observe in the Estimates for the year that there was any apparent result from the labours of that Commission. He thought it very desirable that the Committee should be informed what—if any—progress had been made in the adoption of the recommendations of that Commission.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the noble Lord had anticipated the observation he was about to make. He had more than once asked in the House what were the duties of the Clerks of Assize, because,
    946
    from his knowledge of them, they were very light indeed. He observed in the Vote that there were several instances in which they acted as Clerks of Arraigns. The Clerk of Assize of the South-Eastern District received £1,500 a-year as Clerk of the Central Criminal Court. He dared say that £1,500 a-year was well earned; but why he should receive £500 a-year as Clerk of Assize he could not understand. He trusted they would have some hope held out by the Government that they would use their influence for the reduction of these offices, either by the transference of their duties to the Judges Marshal, or to the clerks who attended the Judge on Circuit.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, he observed an item of £180 for salary to the Auditor of Welsh Sheriffs' accounts, who was an officer who also drew a salary from the Land Revenue Department as Receiver of Crown Rents, and who received £100 a-year from the Superannuation Vote. He wished to ask, whether this gentleman was not in practice as a public rent collector? It occurred to him that this was another of those jobs in which one person was allowed to hold so many situations.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, in answer first of all to the question of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish), the Report of the Commission to which he had referred was now under the consideration of the Treasury, who would carry out its recommendations as the offices fell vacant, or as there were opportunities for re-organization. In regard to the Clerks of Assize, he would remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) that the Commission which sat in 1868 recommended that the salaries of these officers should be materially reduced; and in several instances, where the opportunity had arisen, that had been done. The Clerk of Assize was an important officer, and one to whose office considerable importance was attached in the country. The increase in the travelling allowances to the Clerks of Assize had arisen in consequence of the additional Assize which had been held under the Winter Assize Act. In regard to the salary of the Auditor of the Welsh Sheriffs' accounts, that work, of course, did not occupy the whole of the officer's time, and he was the Receiver of Crown Rents, deriving his

    947
    salary from the Land Revenue Department. The £100 a-year superannuation allowance paid to him was in respect of compensation for the loss of an office. In reference to the question which had been raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), it appeared that, in consequence of the very numerous complaints as to the mode in which the costs of criminal prosecutions were taxed, a system was adopted in 1874, by which they were paid on the average of the three preceding years, to hold good for the following three years. That three years expired in 1877, and when he had just come into Office, he found the Papers which had been laid before his Predecessor on this point. The Examiners of Criminal Accounts were now considering the revision of this scale, and the average would now be taken from the expiration of the first three years on which the previous average was struck, so that the counties and boroughs would have the full benefit of any alteration which had taken place,
    MR. CHILDERSwould wish to supplement the statement of his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) with reference to the history of the appointment of the Royal Commission on the administrative departments of the Law Courts. There were considerable debates in the House a few years ago on what appeared to be the unduly large charge for these and similar purposes. A Committee, over which he had the honour to preside, was appointed, and before them was disclosed such a gross system of waste and extravagance in the legal department that they recommended the appointment of a Royal Commission. The Members of the Royal Commission comprised a noble Lord of great administrative experience, one of the Barons of the Exchequer, some of the most experienced officials connected with the Treasury and spending departments; and after a very careful inquiry, which extended over two years, they drew up and presented to Parliament a Report, with respect to the greater part of which they were absolutely unanimous. On the question of the necessity for reorganization, there was no question between them. For instance, they dealt very fully with the question of Clerks of Assize, which involved an expenditure of
    948
    about £20,000 a-year, and recommended not that reforms should be only effected as vacancies arose, but that the offices as now constituted should be altogether abolished, so that an entirely new system might be established, through the agency of a central office in London, which would result not only in considerable economy, but to greater efficiency in the service. He thought the Committee was clearly entitled to ask why a Report of the kind which he had described made four Sessions ago, after an inquiry which extended over two years, had not been acted upon. Surely, four years was a sufficient time in which to deal with those recommendations of a Royal Commission on which there was no difference of opinion. He hoped there would be no mere casual reform, but a general adoption of the practical and valuable recommendations of the Commission, so as to make the reform thorough and complete, and to produce greater efficiency, coupled with economy.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, the question he put had not been answered by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury. His question was, not whether the Auditor of the Welsh Accounts held another office of profit, and received a pension on account of a third which he had previously held, but whether he had still sufficient time on his hands to serve the public in another capacity?
    MR. D. DAVIESpointed out that the Secretary to the Treasury had not explained to him how it arose that, while the amount for the salaries of clerks had only increased by about 3 per cent, the increase in the travelling expenses was about 20 per cent.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained that the increase in the travelling expenses was owing to the fact that an additional Assize was how held under the provisions of the Judicature Act. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), the answer was that the duties performed by the gentleman in question were such as could only be performed by someone specially fitted for the work, and were not sufficient to justify the payment of a salary which should entitle the Government to demand the exclusive services of the holder of the office. It was, therefore, thought best

    949
    to allow that gentleman to fill another office, the pay from which provided him with a sufficient income in connection with a superannuation which he enjoyed. By this means the country saved a considerable sum of money, and secured greater efficiency in the public service. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), he had to say that the Report of the Royal Commission was, without doubt, a very valuable document, and was being carefully considered by the Treasury; but reforms of the kind suggested in the Report were not of a kind to be made in a day in so large a Department of the public service as that to which the Report referred. He had only been in Office a short time, and the matter had not been dealt with by him officially; but he could assure the Committee that it was the desire of the Treasury to deal with the question, and it would be no fault of theirs if the reforms which were recommended were not carried into effect.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that on former occasions, when he had brought this question before the House, he had been told that the recommendations of the Committee could not be carried out until experience had been had of the working of the Judicature Act. He hoped that some information would be given at once as to the intentions of the Government.
    MR. MACDONALDrepeated that his question had not been answered. What he wanted to know was, whether this gentleman who held two offices under the Crown, and enjoyed a superannuation allowance on account of another office which he had formerly held, was also enabled to carry on other employments as a collector of accounts for all and sundry the other private persons who might choose to employ him?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that the official referred to received payment for the duties which he was engaged to perform, and did perform. He knew nothing as to what the gentleman did with any spare time that he might have on his hands.
    MR. RYLANDSthought the question which had been asked by his right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) ought not to be passed over so lightly as it had been. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would remember
    950
    that, during the time of Office of a former Government, a Committee was appointed to consider the question of Civil Service Expenditure. He had the honour of sitting on that Committee, in company with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—who was not then in Office—and other distinguished Members of the House. The Committee sat during the whole of one Session, and the Inquiry they made resulted in information of the greatest possible value and interest being elicited. At the end of the Session the Committee suggested, as they had not inquired fully into the matters referred to them, that they should be re-appointed, with a view to continuing their inquiry in the following Session. The Government refused to re-appoint the Committee; but, upon their recommendation, appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into one of the branches of the matter referred to them—namely, the expenditure connected with the Law Courts and the Legal Departments of the Government. The Commission sat, and, having completed their inquiry, made a Report; but that Report, as well as the Report of the Committee which sat in 1873, had up to the present been treated as so much waste-paper, and the economies, which might have been secured, at the latest, three years ago, seemed to be as far off as ever from accomplishment. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had said that reforms of that kind could not be effected in a moment; but, surely, the five years which had elapsed since the appointment of the Committee on whose Report the Royal Commission was appointed, had afforded a sufficient time for something to be done? He certainly thought that, at any rate, the Committee was entitled to ask for the re-appointment of the original Committee, or the appointment of a new one, in order to the resumption of the work which was interrupted on a former occasion.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that, having been up to within a very short time intimately connected with the work of the Treasury, he thought himself entitled, if not bound, to say a few words on the question before the Committee. No one could deny that the Report of the Royal Commission was a most important and valuable one; but, as the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had remarked, it was necessary

    951
    that there should be some two or three years' experience of the working of the Judicature Acts before effect could be given to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. It was intended, after those two years had expired, to appoint a small Departmental Committee, which should inquire and report as to the working of the Acts. That Committee, he believed, had not yet been appointed; but it was still the intention of the Government to appoint it. It might not be found possible to effect all the economies that were desired; but the wishes of the Government tended solely in that direction, and they would, as far as possible, carry out such of the recommendations of the Royal Commission as were likely to bring about the necessary reforms.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was much pleased with the assurance on the part of the Government that the Report of the Royal Commission should be dealt with; but he must point out that, a year ago, the Government undertook that the Committee which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty should be appointed. It was five years since the Committee sat; four years had passed since the Royal Commission reported; one year had elapsed since the Committee who should consider the Reports of the Committee and the Royal Commission was promised; and yet nothing had been done. He thought the question was the more important and the delay more serious, because not only were the thorough changes which had been proposed delayed, but fresh appointments had been actually made on the old system, within the last few months. He certainly thought that four years was a long time to wait for the Government of the day to act upon the unanimous recommendation of a Royal Commission.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the Department of Clerks of Assize had not long since been made the subject of careful inquiry with a view to reforms, and he did not think the conduct of the Government in regard to the matter was fairly open to the charges which had been made to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract in the course of the discussion.
    MR. O'DONNELLpointed out that the Vote included a sum of £10,500, which was described as—
    "Repayments to Sheriffs in England and Wales of Expenses incurred in providing Lodgings for the Judges on Circuit; Rewards in respect of extraordinary exertions in the furtherance of Justice, and other Expenses (including £240 formerly borne on the Consolidated Fund)."
    He thought details ought to be given, instead of the Committee being asked to vote a lump sum.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £133,210, 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 such of the Salaries and Expenses of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, of the Court of Appeal, and of the Supreme Court of Judicature, as are not charged on the Consolidated Fund."
    MR. RYLANDScomplained of the amounts put down in the Estimate for the payment of the Official Referees. The amount put down was £6,000, and he believed the work done was quite incommensurate with the sum charged. He should be glad if the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury or some of the Legal Advisers of the Crown could suggest a way in which the services of the Official Referees could be utilized, and they could be made to earn their salaries.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, the hon. Member for Burnley seemed to be under the impression that the Law Officers of the Crown were responsible for the changes which had been rendered necessary by the passing of the Judicature Act. This was altogether a mistake. The Official Referees were appointed under an Act passed in 1873, when a Liberal Government was in power; and it would be remembered that, at the time, several hon. Members on both sides of the House strongly questioned the advisability of making the appointments. The objections were overborne by the Government of the day, and, as a consequence, it was determined to appoint Official Referees. When the appointments came to be made, there was a long discussion in the House as to the

    953
    suitability of some of the gentlemen who had been nominated, and in consequence of what was then said, the confidence of the public was so much shaken that very few cases were intrusted to the Official Referees. He saw no reason why this should have been so, but the fact remained. He could not contend that the Official Referees had done much work, because the contrary was the fact; but that was not their fault. They had been appointed under an Act of Parliament, and were ready, indeed eager, to do any amount of work that might be intrusted to them; but solicitors and other persons engaged in legal matters were disinclined, owing mainly to the discussions in that House on the question of their appointment, to intrust them with work, and they remained practically unemployed. Another reason why the business of the Official Referees was not extensive was, that the Act under which they were appointed did not give sufficiently wide powers of reference. If that defect were remedied, and the disfavour into which the Referees had fallen in consequence of the discussions in Parliament died away, he had no doubt that sufficient work would be found for them to do. The question now before the Committee, however, was one of expenditure, and he did not see how the office of Official Referee could be abolished, without some arrangement being made for the compensation of the office-holders. All he could suggest was, that if it were found that these gentlemen's time was not fully occupied, and if it should be thought that they were really and truly paid large salaries for doing a very inadequate amount of work, the best way of dealing with them would be—and he would only throw this out as a suggestion to the Committee—that these gentlemen should be utilized for other offices.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, no doubt it was true that the Government of the day was responsible for the Judicature Act; but that Act left all the details as numbers, salary, qualification and tenure of office to the Government under which the Act came into operation, and for these the present Lord Chancellor was responsible. The Government under whose auspices the Act was passed was in no respect responsible for anything else except the power granted to appoint
    954
    so many officers as the Lord Chancellor and the Presidents of the Divisions of the High Court of Justice should decide. Therefore, as to the number and qualifications of the gentlemen appointed under the Judicature Act, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General could not shake off the responsibility of his Government. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Official Referees, instead of being superseded, had a claim to other judicial appointments, he would remind him that those gentlemen were not in the position of holders of judicial offices, but were exactly like any other civil servants.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEobserved, that it had been said, with truth, that certain portions of an action only could now be referred to the Official Referees. If this arose from any defect in the Act under which they were appointed, why could not the Government propose a short Bill, to enable everything in an action to be referred to the Official Referees, and giving them full power to deal with all questions in dispute? Whether those gentlemen ought to be so intrusted was another question.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, that there would be no difficulty in referring all questions in an action to the Referees, if all parties consented. He would suggest that, when the offices became vacant, they should not be filled up. Were the services of the Referees now dispensed with, the country would have to pay them compensation, which would come to nearly the same thing as continuing their salaries.
    MR. GREGORYobserved, that if there was one thing he objected to in the Judicature Act, it was the power of compulsory reference. At the time the Act was passed, he protested against it as a great injustice; many other hon. Members also raised their voices against it; but the large majority on the other side of the House frustrated the Amendments they proposed on that and many other points. The Referees were constituted under the Judicature Act, and though, no doubt, they had been appointed by the present Government, the machinery with regard to them was regulated by the Act. He thought that discussion with reference to their appointment had arisen only in the case of one of them, the others being appointed

    955
    as a matter of course. The one to whom that discussion applied was appointed on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Baron to the Lord Chancellor. For his part, he had never expected that a great amount of business would be sent to these Official Referees, and he had not been disappointed. He thought that there should be an understanding with the Government that these appointments should not be filled up when they became vacant; or the suggestion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General might be adopted, and these Gentlemen might be gradually relieved, and placed in a somewhat similar position to the Masters, with regard to the conduct of references and arbitration. He believed that the gentlemen who filled these offices were desirous of working if the public would allow them, and it was not their fault that they sat idle in their offices. One of these gentlemen, who had been referred to by name, Mr. Russell, with whom he was personally acquainted, tried a reference of very great importance which his firm conducted. Mr. Russell threw himself into the matter with considerable zeal, and took a long journey into the South of Europe, in an inclement season of the year, for the purposes of the case. It became seriously ill in consequence. It was certainly one advantage of the system of Official Referees that they could move about anywhere to take evidence wherever necessary. That was a great convenience in the trial of causes submitted to them. But the system under which the fees were at present taken, and by which they were compelled to be paid before the matter could be proceeded with, was at once harassing and vexatious; while, at the same time, it was humiliating to the parties who had the conduct of the business, and, he ventured to say, was entirely unnecessary.
    MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSremarked, that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) had expressed a hope that the Government would bring in a short Bill giving the Referees the same powers that were conferred upon the Courts by the Judicature Act of 1873. He was sorry to have to express a contrary opinion; he hoped the Government would do nothing of the kind. It was true there was an impression upon the part of the public, and of some of
    956
    the Judges, that the power of the High Court of Justice, in referring cases to the Official Referees, was too limited by the terms of the present Act. The truth was, that that was an accidental omission. Those who took part in the discussion of the Judicature Act of 1873 would recollect that, as a matter of policy, the powers to refer compulsorily to the Official Referees were limited. He remembered that some of the legal Members of the House pointed out that there was no provision introduced into the Act empowering the Courts to refer compulsorily any cause to the Official Referees, but only a question in an action. All that was to be referred to the Official Referees were matters for investigation and report in an action. That might seem to be a technical distinction, but it was one of substance; and when a question was referred to them to investigate and report upon, the judgment upon the matter was to be given by the Court itself. Therefore, the full control of the action was kept by the Court, the Official Referee only having to report to the Court upon matters in dispute. Had he not been satisfied that the power to refer compulsorily to the Official Referees was limited to any question in an action, he should have objected to the appointment of those gentlemen. He did not think that the explanation of the small amount of business which had come to them was that actions were not sufficiently within their absolute control. What the cause was he did not know; but he thought it was really hard upon these gentlemen to enter into a personal discussion concerning them, when the matter had been fully discussed in former years. If they were not the best men that could be selected, it was yet harder upon them to rake the matter up; they had given up their Profession for the sake of serving the public, and he protested against the recurrence of a discussion which could not be for the benefit of anyone concerned.
    MR. ALFRED MARTENwas bound to say, with regard to the observations that had been made upon the existing state of business before the Official Referees, that matters had much improved. For a considerable period very little was done by them, owing to the charges being fixed at too high a figure; but about a year ago a change was made,

    957
    and he believed, speaking especially of Chancery practice, that a considerable amount of business was now referred to the Official Referees. The great objection to their employment at first was the very high fees charged.
    MR. NORWOODdid not wish for one moment to attack these officers; but he, for one, objected to giving any compulsory power to the Judges to refer actions, which ought to be tried by them, to inferior officials. He maintained that when a suitor came to Her Majesty's High Court of Justice, he had a right to expect to obtain the verdict of the Judge himself. As he regarded it, the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General would simply have the effect of relieving the Judges of duties they ought to discharge, and of forcing Her Majesty's subjects to accept the decision of an inferior officer; but he thought the proposal made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Government should take into consideration the advisability of utilizing the services of these gentlemen, was a wise one. When the Bill was under discussion, he was one of those who protested against giving these gentlemen too great a power, and he still protested against giving them any judicial power at all.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)did not think that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Norwood) had exactly appreciated what he wished to state to the Committee. He did not remember having suggested that the Official Referees should have greater power; but what he did say was, that they did not get so much business as they could perform, in consequence of the powers given by the Act of Parliament not having proved adequate for the purpose. As to whether those, powers should be increased or not, he had offered no suggestion. The only suggestion of a practical character he had made was, that their time not being utilized under the present system, they might be gradually absorbed and transferred to other offices.
    MR. CHILDERShad had an opportunity of referring to the Statute, and he found that the gentlemen accepted office under the ordinary conditions of the Superannuation Act as civil servants. If retired after three years, which was their present service, they would only be entitled to £100 a-year. Whether
    958
    or not it was intended to absorb them into any other Department, it nevertheless was the fact that they had accepted office on condition of being retired on such an allowance.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: My right hon. Friend has hardly recognized the fact that they are legal offices.
    MR. CHILDERS: I have referred expressly to the terms of the Act, and it will be found that they are not legal offices, and no addition to their retirement allowances as such has been made.
    MR. W. H. SMITHwished to correct the statement he had made in answer to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish). The Committee to which he referred, instead of having to be appointed, had completed its work, and agreed upon its Report, which would shortly be under the consideration of the Government.
    Mr. RYLANDSsaid, that it was the duty of those who represented the taxpayers in that House to see, when such large charges were made, that the country reaped full benefit from them. If it were thought that the House of Commons had committed a mistake in establishing offices and placing in them gentlemen who, for some reason or other, failed to fulfil their duties, it would be very unsatisfactory to the public to know that rather than disturb gentlemen in the enjoyment of these comfortable sinecures, the Government would continue to charge the country with the sum of £6,821. If for no other reason, he thought the discussion would be of value, inasmuch as it had produced two important statements, which he hoped would be borne in mind. One was the practical suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that it was possible that the Government might find some suitable situations into which those learned gentlemen might be drafted, and, although a mistake might have been made by the appointment of those officials, yet it might be rectified, and the public interest served by the course so suggested. If, on the other hand, the Government did not find any such situations for those gentlemen, then they were told by the right hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), that in the course of the next year they could dispense with their services by giving them

    959
    a compensation allowance of £100 a-year each. They would then, also, get rid entirely of the Clerks to the Referees at £800 a-year, and in place of £6,800, they would pay an annuity of £400 a-year. If no one else on a future occasion, when the Vote came before the House, was prepared to move the rejection of the amount of the Vote, he should be prepared himself to make a Motion to that effect, with a view of inducing Her Majesty's Government to place those gentlemen on the retiring list. He sincerely hoped the Government would not put the Committee in the position of having to consider a Vote of this kind next year; for he was quite sure the Government ought, without any further pressure, to remove those gentlemen from the sinecure positions they now held, and remove them as speedily as possible to useful situations, or at once to place them upon the retiring list.
    MR. MACDONALDobserved, that there was one point on which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had misled the Committee. It was stated very distinctly by the Attorney General that these gentlemen gave up their practices and businesses, and that statement was also affirmed by the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Watkin Williams), who had come to the rescue of these sinecurists. He remembered to have heard it stated that they were not in the possession of any practices. There was one other point to which he would call the attention of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury. It was the item—"Chancery Officer and High Court of Justice—1. Stock Broker, £2,000 a-year." He would like to know what the office of Stockbroker had to do with the High Court of Justice.
    MR. BULWERsaid, that he remembered, when this measure was passed, expressing the apprehension he was under that the appointment of the Official Referees would be a failure. It was then the opinion of the public and of the Profession that an additional Judge was required, who would have cost the country some £5,000 a-year; but the late economical Government preferred appointing the Official Referees, who cost the country a good deal more. In his opinion, the appointment of the Official Referees was altogether wrong on principle, and the only justification that he could see for their appointment was
    960
    that suitors might be benefited by lessening the expense of arbitrations; but, as he understood, no such benefit had resulted. If parties were to be compelled to refer matters in controversy to others than the legal tribunals, they ought to be able to choose the arbitrator themselves, for better or for worse, whose decision should be final. Under the present system, neither time nor expense was saved. It was in the power of any disappointed litigant to re-open every question before the Superior Courts, questions of fact as well as questions of law, all of which had been dealt with by the Official Referees, and thus to add very enormously to the expenses of litigation. To allow that to be done was, he thought, bad on principle. With reference to what had been said as to the gentlemen appointed having no practice, to his personal knowledge two, at least, of them, gave up large and lucrative practices, and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) was, therefore, wrong in what he had stated. He did not think that gentlemen who had given up large and lucrative practices ought to be dealt with in the manner suggested. It would be quite unworthy of the House of Commons to consign these gentlemen to private life with a salary of £100 a-year. So far as the principle of Official Referees was concerned, he protested against it, and believed that their appointment had been an unfortunate experiment.
    MR. D. DAVIESwished to call the attention of the Committee to one point, having had considerable experience in business before Referees. In his opinion, there was nothing worse than going before Referees, for counsel always took liberties with them. Barristers arranged matters for their own convenience, and postponed and delayed the trial, by which means those who employed them lost hundreds of pounds. A Referee or two might be useful to assess what the Judges called "quantum." The Judges could not be expected to go into questions of amount, and for that purpose Referees would be useful. He trusted the Government would find some way to make these gentlemen useful for that purpose.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)thought the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. D. Davies) had raised an objection which

    961
    could not be validly urged against these Official Referees. His objection was really against arbitrators appointed for better or for worse by the parties. Such a Referee might, at the request of counsel, allow an adjournment; but the Official Referee could not do that, but had to sit de die in diem, without listening to any applications for adjournment.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), would venture to say that if the Stockbroker of the Chancery Division were not paid by salary his commission would come to a very much larger sum.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, that everyone acquainted with Chancery business knew that hundreds of thousands of pounds were invested yearly in the purchase of different securities. Some of those investments were of a very minute amount, and must necessarily cause an enormous amount of trouble to those engaged in making the investment. He should like to say one word on the question of Official Referees. Everyone must feel that the present system was a confessed failure, though as to the cause of it people might have different opinions. There were some very unpleasant debates as to the qualifications of the gentlemen appointed; but, after full discussion, the House came to the conclusion that no further action was necessary, and he thought that the present question ought to drop. He could not help thinking that the real cause of the failure was this—that it was not originally intended that lawyers should be appointed Official Referees. The theory of the Referees was, that technical questions, such as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. Davies) refered to—as questions of "quantum," specifications of patents, chemical questions, and other matters of a technical character—should be referred to the investigation of persons who had scientific and technical, rather than legal, knowledge. In the clause of the Act of Parliament he found that it was not stated whether these Official Referees were to be barristers, or even lawyers at all. Their qualifications were left entirely open, and he could not help thinking that there had been some little miscarriage in the appointment of
    962
    lawyers. It was well known that jealousy was felt by suitors with regard to compulsory references. Every suitor thought he had a right to have his cause tried by the Judge himself, and, certainly, a good deal could be said in favour of that idea. But the same objection to a reference would not occur if skilled technical Referees had been appointed to conduct the compulsory references. He hoped that some day, when there was a vacancy in these offices, the Government would not abolish them, but would appoint in the place of lawyers some technically skilled persons, who would be able better to carry out the intentions of the framers of the Act.
    MR. ALFRED MARTENobserved, with regard to the superannuation allowances, that one of those gentlemen appointed was formerly Examiner in Chancery, and would not fall under the category mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers).
    MR. BIGGARwished to have an explanation of some items which he found at p. 169 of the Estimates. They were under the head of Salaries to the Lord Chancellor's Officers. He found a Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, Chief Clerk to ditto, Second Clerk to ditto, Third Clerk to ditto, Messenger, Secretary to the Lord Chancellor, Secretary of Presentations, Secretary of Commissioners of the Peace, Gentleman of the Chamber, Pursebearer, ditto for performing the duties of Sealer and Chaff Wax, Messenger of the Great Seal, and others. He would like his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General to explain the meaning of some of those offices, for it seemed to him that the salaries paid to the Lord Chancellor's officers were exceedingly heavy in proportion to the amount of business performed by them.
    MR. O'DONNELLwished to protest against the employment of Official Referees. From all parties in the Committee he heard that they were excellent persons, very desirous of having something to do, yet finding no work. He begged to move to reduce the amount proposed to be voted by £3,000, which would relieve the Estimates of two of the Official Referees.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member propose to reduce the Vote or the item?
    MR. O'DONNELL: The item.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the item of £6,821, for Salaries of Official Referees be reduced by the sum of £3,000."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. WHITWELLhoped the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would withdraw his Motion. It must be well known to him that a division would be perfectly nugatory, and they already had the assurance from hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that they would do the best they could to decrease the expenditure for the future.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISperfectly well recollected the discussion that took place in that House in 1873, when the original Judicature Act was passing. The clause appointing the Official Referees was supported on the ground that it would be well to appoint prominent scientific men as Official Referees to conduct references of scientific matters. The Lord Chancellor had not carried out that clause, of which he was not the author, and had seen fit to appoint barristers. It was no wonder their services were not so much sought after by suitors as those of scientific men would be in purely scientific cases. There was a very wide-spread suspicion and dislike of these "hole-and-corner" investigations. It was, however, a very hard thing to call these gentlemen the holders of sinecure offices, when they had to attend and be ready to perform their duties. It was necessary for them always to be in attendance at their offices, for they could never tell when they would be required. He begged to oppose the Amendment.
    MR. CHILDERSjoined in the appeal to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he did not feel himself justified in withdrawing his Motion, but would be content if the Committee negatived it without a division.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. RAMSAYasked whether the Government had directed their attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Lunacy. Evidence was produced before that Committee to show that very great expenses were incurred by the employment of Visitors in Lunacy and the
    964
    Masters in Lunacy. He thought that some attention should be paid to that evidence, and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would see its way to effect a junction between the jurisdiction in Lunacy of the Court of Chancery and the Commissioners in Lunacy, so as to unite the two bodies into one Department of the State, having charge of all lunatics. That system prevailed in Scotland, and economy would be effected in England by putting all lunatics in the charge of one Department. It was essential something should be done, as great expenses were incurred by the present system.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, that the Lord Chancellor's Offices numbered a great many Departments in the State, with different Secretaries who were absolutely essential for the performance of the work. The Secretary of Presentations took charge of that Department, while the Secretary for Commission of the Peace looked after another; and so on. With reference to the other Departments, he could not give the exact duties of each, but they were all necessary.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was not satisfied with the explanation. There was a Pursebearer, a Sealer, and Chaff Wax; and, unless he had some reasonable explanation of their duties, it seemed to him that the offices were sinecures. He would confine himself to moving that the Vote be reduced by the sum paid to the Pursebearer, Sealer, and Chaff Wax.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member for Cavan would not be in Order in making the Motion he proposed. The Committee had at present before it the Motion to reduce the item for the salaries of the Official Referees, and it would not be in Order to propose to omit another item while that was under consideration.
    MR. BIGGARthought that he would be in Order in proposing that the whole of the Vote be reduced. He should like an explanation as to the Clerk of Petty Bag, and the other officers.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)was afraid that he could not explain all these different items as they were not in his Department. The Sealer and Chaff Wax, he presumed, performed duties in affixing the Great Seal to all documents passing

    965
    under it. No doubt, it would not be expected that the Lord Chancellor would himself affix the Seal, and he supposed the official referred to was charged with that duty. The office of the Petty Bag was one from which all original writs issued. He did not know the exact administration of the office, only that it was one that was actually in the performance of duties, and in no respect a sinecure.
    MR. GREGORYwished to state that the office of Chaff Wax used to be a sinecure. There was a considerable revenue attached to it; but it was now abolished, and the holder received compensation. There were certain duties which had to be performed, and they were now executed by a person who received £100 a-year for affixing the Great Seal. The Purse bearer was the person who carried the Great Seal, and always accompanied the Lord Chancellor.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKwould ask the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to rest satisfied with the explanation.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that a question had been asked as to the meaning of the Petty Bag office. So far as he could understand the hon. and learned Solicitor General, the explanation was that he did not know much about it. That did not seem to him satisfactory.
    MR. PARNELLobserved, that the office of Pursebearer had already been under the consideration of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into those offices. In the Report of the Commissioners there was a short passage which he would read—
    ''We are of opinion—and it is one shared by the present Pursebearer—that all of his duties, except that of sealing, may be done by the Gentleman of the Chamber, and that the sealing could be done by a messenger under the direction of that officer."
    Thus, the Commissioners gave it as their opinion that the duties of a Pursebearer could be performed by other functionaries, and £600 a-year saved to the country.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Report of the Committee appointed by the present First Lord of the Admiralty had not come before the House; but it would be presented in a short time. Then the suggestions of the Committee would be considered with a view to the adoption of their proposals.
    966
    He must, however, remind hon. Members that, when it was proposed to abolish some of these offices, the question of retiring salaries to the holders of them had to be considered. Therefore, they must be very careful in adjusting any scheme to carry out the Report of the Committee.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the explanation as to the Pursebearer was satisfactory, and he would assume that the Government would do what was right for the public service in respect of that office, and that if the duties could be performed by some other officials, the holder of the office would be absorbed in some such way as proposed in the case of the Official Referees. As to the Petty Bag Office, no explanation seemed to be given, and he should be happy to hear something with respect to it.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought he had stated no alterations were to be made at present, because a Committee had been appointed to report upon the matter. The Department of the Petty Bag was one of those old Departments of the State, like the Purse-bearer, the relic of an old system, and, in common with the others, would come into consideration in any fresh scheme that might be proposed. It would be impossible to do away with particular offices, except by the re-organization of Departments, and the subject, as a whole, had yet to be considered.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that as he understood that these offices were likely, to some extent, to be re-constituted, he would not trouble the Committee any further in the matter; but if he lived for another year, and found that no reform was introduced with respect to the items to which attention had been drawn, he should feel it his duty to strenuously oppose the Votes, for many of the charges included in them appeared to him to be thoroughly preposterous.
    MR. RAMSAYremarked, that no notice had been taken of the subject to which he had directed attention. He would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General seriously to consider the expediency of making some change in the administration of the affairs of lunatics, which came under the cognizance of the Court of Chancery. He thought that the facts which were stated in the evidence to which he had referred were sufficient to show that

    967
    some change should be made. He did not say what change. Upon that point he offered no opinion; but some assurance ought to be given to the Committee that the subject would be seriously considered before this Vote was submitted to them another year.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had to apologize to the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), but really his point was covered by the reply which he had already given. These were all branches of the same Department, on which a Royal Commission, and, subsequently, a Committee, had reported; and the question of the re-organization of the Staff and duties of this, as of all the other branches of Chancery, would have to be considered at the same time by the Treasury.
    MR. DILLWYNthought it was rather hard that when a plain question, as to what were the duties of the Petty Bag Office was asked, not a single Member of the Government was in a position to give a plain answer to it. Yet the Committee were called upon to vote a certain sum of money for the office. He thought that when his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who had threatened to move the rejection of this item, accepted the explanation of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury—though that explanation was far from satisfactory, indeed, it was no explanation at all—that under the circumstances his hon. Friend ought not to be readily charged again with obstruction. He (Mr. Dillwyn) confessed that if he had proposed the reduction of the Vote, he should not have been disposed to act as his hon. Friend had done.
    MR. GREGORYdesired to point out to the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), that the functions of the Masters of Lunacy had reference, to a great extent, to the management of the estates of lunatics; while the duties of the Commissioners, who had to visit the lunatics, were of a distinct character.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was fully aware of what the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gregory) had just stated; but what he had omitted to tell the Committee was, that the items to which attention had been drawn were justifiable either in the interest of the lunatics, or of the country. What he (Mr. Ramsay)
    968
    contended was, that these estates ought to bear the expenses of management, including the expenses of any persons or officers who might be employed by the Lord Chancellor to look after them. He thought, moreover, that he had shown that the subject was one of pressing importance.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (5.) £47,440, to complete the sum for the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, a vacancy had recently occurred in the office of Master of the Queen's Bench. He believed it had been stated by his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that the Report of the Committee upon Legal Offices was in the hands of the Treasury, and he (Mr. Gregory) hoped that before long it would be laid upon the Table of the House. He thought they might assume that that Report had some bearing upon such an office as he had mentioned, and it might be satisfactory to the Committee to receive some assurance from the Government that this office should not be filled up until, at all events, the Treasury had had an opportunity of considering this Report. Perhaps, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury could give them some information upon the subject.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas afraid his answer would not be satisfactory to his hon. Friend. He could only say that the appointment was one which rested, not with the Treasury, but entirely with the Lord Chief Justice.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, if he were not mistaken, power was taken in an Act, passed either last year or the year before, to suspend all appointments until it had been decided what course should be adopted with respect to the Report of the Commission.
    MR. WHITWELLcould not think that the Lord Chief Justice would fill up an appointment which he was given to understand would have to come under the review of the Treasury. He wished to ask, whether it was a fact that all expenses incurred in respect of Election Petitions were paid by the parties themselves? He had been under the impression that such was the case; but he found that the Vote included a considerable sum for

    969
    defraying the expense of conducting such Petitions.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought, that if his hon. Friend would refer to the Act on the subject, he would find that the duty of defraying certain expenses was imposed by it upon the Treasury out of money to be provided by Parliament. These were the expenses put down in this Vote.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it struck him that under the head of Clerks to the different Judges in the Queen's Bench Division, there was an extraordinary large number of persons employed. He should like to ask the hon. and learned Solicitor General what occupation there was for so many clerks?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)believed that the clerks were not one too many with reference to the administrative business that had to be got through. The hon. Member did not sufficiently understand that, besides the business with which he was more familiar—namely, that which took place in Court—there was an enormous number of duties of a different character. Originally the clerks were paid by fees, and those fees were considered to be excessive. By an Act of Parliament fees were taken away, and the clerks were paid, not so very long ago, by salaries which were then fixed; but he believed it was the experience of all the learned Judges in their Chambers, that the number of clerks was by no means in excess of the requirements of the public service.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6). £70,274, to complete the sum for the Probate, &c., Registries of the High Court of Justice.
    (7). £10,044, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Registry of the High Court of Justice.
    MR. MACDONALDcomplained that here, again, they had officers filling two distinct offices, for each of which they received a salary. He should really like to know how it was they were able to perform the duties of both offices. He had no wish to waste the time of the Committee, but he must repeat that this was a matter which demanded their most earnest attention.
    MR. MELLORsaid, he entertained the opinion, that the more they obstructed
    970
    upon these Estimates the more likely they were to arrive in the end at a satisfactory solution. He quite agreed with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). It would appear that persons were appointed to office without regard being had whether the duties were sufficient to absorb the whole of their time or not. His own opinion was, that a person was appointed who was employed for a couple of hours each day, and that he was attached to some other Department with an additional salary to fill up his time. He found that in that House there was one party to trim the lamp, and another to light the fire; but on the principle which seemed to guide the Treasury in these matters, if the one man were to be employed to perform both duties he would receive two salaries, although he performed them within the day. He hoped that the hon. Member for Stafford would take a more decided course. Nothing was so objectionable to his mind as discussing these various points in the Estimates without coming to a division, and testing the opinion of the Committee upon them.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, he had again to ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, what explanation he had to offer with respect to persons who were receiving as much as £200 a-year for one office, while they were paid large sums besides for services rendered in other offices? Unless this thing was explained, he should certainly follow the course indicated by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Mellor), and divide the Committee on every one of these items, if it were to take six months to get through the Estimates.
    MR. J. COWENthought that some of his hon. Friends scarcely appreciated the position. Their judicial system was one that had recently undergone an entire change, and the difficulty arose in assimilating the old with the new. There were a large number of persons holding offices now who held offices under the old system, and they could not dispense with them without giving them compensation. The difficulty was to join the old and the new together. Now, as he understood, the Government had undertaken to inquire into the whole subject, and deal with it in a comprehensive manner, and if they did that,

    971
    they would remove the objections which some of his hon. Friends had to the present system. There was no doubt that what they said had a good deal of force in it—namely, that many of these gentlemen were holding two or three offices, getting salaries for each, and doing comparatively nothing for them. But if that state of affairs was to be dealt with, it must be in a comprehensive and not in an isolated way.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that what the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had said accounted for a considerable number of these cases. He would further point out that the result of employing some of these officers in doing work which appeared in the foot-note as work done without the Department was a saving of the public money. If that course had not been followed, the probability was that the work would have been done by some officer appointed for the purpose with a larger salary.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to inform the Committee why it was that such an increasing number of these footnotes appeared in the Estimates. The fact was, that some few years ago the Committee on Public Accounts recommended that this information should be given, as they thought it very unfair that full information should not be afforded to the House. Formerly, no such notes were appended to the Votes, and it would have been impossible then, from the Estimates, to know what the emoluments of a public servant were.
    MR. DILLWYNquite agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) that the foot-notes were a great improvement on the Estimates produced formerly; but what he urged some time ago upon the House, and what he would still continue to urge, was that an addition should be made to these footnotes. He desired that in each Session, before the Estimates were placed in their hands, a tabulated statement should be prepared showing the names of all the officers who held different offices, with the salaries or remuneration attached to them. The House would then be able to see what it was doing. He quite agreed with what the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had said. It might be a great advantage to
    972
    the public service to have two separate sets of duties performed by an officer in one of the Departments; but, on the other hand, such an arrangement afforded an opening for very great jobbing and mystification. It might, in fact, be made a cover for sinecures, if not very sharply looked after; and a tabulated statement such as he had suggested would enable hon. Members to discharge that duty much more efficiently than they could at the present time.
    MR. BIGGARwished, before the Vote was passed, to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury to one item in it. He observed that in the case of the Registrar of the Court of Admiralty, that officer was also paid a salary as Wreck Commissioner—the two together, with that appertaining to another office, amounting to £3,000 a-year. As Registrar, he was receiving a salary of £1,600 a-year, and it seemed to him that was a very large sum to pay a man filling the position of Registrar, who had, he supposed, no judicial duties to perform.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that when the Wreck Commission was first started, the duties of that body were intrusted to the Registrar of the Admiralty Court, as being one of the ablest men who could be found for the position. He thought that, having regard to the nature of the duties performed by that gentleman, the Committee would not think that he was paid too much.
    MR. O'DONNELLwished to say, with reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), that he thought the general undertaking of the Government to take a survey of the whole subject did not relieve hon. Members from the duty of criticizing the Estimates, and pointing out what they considered as blots in them.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) £8,142, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commission.
    (9.) £28,945, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked, whether he was not right in stating that the superannuations were equal to the whole amount of the salaries now paid in the Bankruptcy Court?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that though the pensions bore a large proportion of the total amount, they were gradually dying out.
    MR. MACDONALDasked, why one of the clerks received £100 a-year in addition to his salary, and £20 a-year in the shape of an advance which was paid to him in common with the other clerks? What were the duties which entitled him to the extra £100?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas afraid he could not give the desired information; but, from its not appearing in a foot-note, he imagined that the £100 was for some special work done by the clerk in question. He would make inquiry.
    MR. PARNELLasked the meaning of the item for Counsels' fees?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONimagined that there was still work required to be done by those gentlemen, although the office had been abolished.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £326,527, to complete the sum for County Courts.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, he wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the items in this account relating to the payment of County Court Registrars. When these Registrars were appointed, the design and intention of Parliament was that their salaries should not amount to more than from £800 to £1,000 a-year. That was the maximum it was then held that the Registrars should be entitled to receive. But it had so happened that, in consequence of the great increase which had since taken place in the business of the County Courts—an increase which at the time these salaries were fixed had never been contemplated by the Legislature—the salaries of the Registrars had been greatly augmented. He ought to state that the Registrars were paid partly by fees and partly by salaries, and the result was that a large number of them received incomes considerably in excess of the intended maximum. He found that there were 11 County Court Registrars in this country who were in receipt of upwards of £1,500 a-year; there were 10 who were receiving £1,200 a-year; and a considerable number—he did not know how many—who received upwards of £1,000 a-year. And not only did
    974
    many of them receive incomes in excess of what was originally intended, but some of their incomes were very largely in excess. For example, the Registrar of the County Court of Birmingham received £5,150 in the shape of salary, and £2,451 in payments on account of clerk-hire. Thus, this officer, who was expected to receive from £800 to £1,000 a-year at the time of his appointment, was now receiving a sum that was much in excess of the salaries paid to the Speaker of the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Prime Minister of England, and double the salary given to the Chairman of Committees. The Registrar of the Leeds County Court was in receipt of a salary of £3,636 and £1,365 for clerk-hire. The Registrar of the Newcastle County Court received £3,571 a-year, and £375 for clerk-hire. The Registrar of Sheffield had a salary of £3,348 and £1,000 for clerk hire. The Registrar of the Bristol County Court received £3,245 as salary, and £1,725 for clerk-hire. The Registrar of the Manchester County Court was in receipt of £2,768 salary, and £1,390 for clerk-hire. The Registrar of the Bradford County Court had an income of £2,596, and £596 for clerk-hire. He might add many more cases of a similar character to this list; but what he had already stated was sufficient to show that the sums paid to these officials were much in excess of what would be a fair and legitimate emolument for the duties discharged as well as of the income which Parliament originally intended them to receive. It seemed to him a great anomaly to place a man in the position of a County Court Judge with a salary of from £1,200 to £1,500 a-year, and to allow an officer of his Court, with nothing like his legal experience, sitting in an adjacent room and performing what was merely clerical work—atany rate, duties that almost any ordinary clerk could perform—to receive something like double the salary given to the Judge, and sometimes three times the amount; while, in a very large majority of cases, his income was greatly in excess of that of the Judge. He trusted that some attention would be paid to this matter by Her Majesty's Government, and that an arrangement would be made by which the salaries paid to Registrars should be proportionate to the duties they had to discharge

    975
    than was now the case. He had no wish to deal hardly with those who at present held the office of Registrar. They had got their appointments, somewhat perhaps by accident, but still they held them, and if the arrangements for their payment should be altered, they would be entitled to compensation; but, in the case of after appointments to that office, it would not be difficult to arrange that they should not be paid anything like the sums they were now receiving. He did not propose to move any Amendment, or to ask for any reduction of the Vote, because he knew that that would be practically impossible. All he desired was to direct attention to this great anomaly; and he should be glad to hear some expression of opinion on the part of the Government, and, if possible, some assurance that they would devote attention to the subject. He was aware that Gentlemen in that House who belonged to the Legal Profession did not like to hear persons who were outside the Profession speaking on legal matters, and that whenever those who were outside the Legal Profession did touch upon such subjects, the rule was to treat them with a certain amount of indifference. Nevertheless, commercial men throughout the country were greatly interested in this matter; and, under these circumstances, he had taken the liberty of submitting to the Government and the Committee the points to which he had drawn attention.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEwas inclined to indorse pretty nearly everything that had fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) as to the anomalous position of County Court Registrars. No one who knew what were the duties of these gentlemen could doubt that the salaries and fees which made up their incomes were very much in excess of what was originally contemplated or thought possible. It was simply an absurdity to know that while none of the Judges had £2,000 a-year, some of the Registrars obtained twice that sum from their offices. He thought he could point out what was one reason for this. Since the passing of the Act under which the Registrars were appointed, the law had imposed upon these officers a second office—namely, that of District Registrar, to which was attached a considerable salary. He trusted that
    976
    something would be done by which the two offices could be dissociated and kept distinct.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, it must be evident to everyone who had at all considered the subject that it was impossible for this Vote to be brought before the House, without some allusion being made to the subject touched upon by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). It was a subject of which they had heard a good deal lately; but, whatever opinions they might have upon it, they ought not to forget that one of the causes of the increased amounts paid to the County Court Registrars was the enormous increase of business that had taken place in the County Courts; and, inasmuch as the Registrars were paid by fees over and above their specified salaries, their emoluments had shown a proportionate increase. One of the causes of this great increase of business was the extension of the Bankruptcy Act to the County Courts; and as there was a large amount of bankruptcy business done in these Courts, the Registrars derived there from an extra income. He hoped, however, that now the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been so strongly called to the subject, they would lend their aid in a very desirable reform by equalizing the payment of Registrars.
    MR. MELLORexpressed a hope that, as the offices now held by the Registrars became vacant, the new appointments would be made at fixed salaries, without fees. This was the only judicious course Her Majesty's Government could take on this subject.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, the matter was one that would have full consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government. At present, the arrangement under which the Registrars were remunerated was fixed by Act of Parliament, and there could be little doubt that when the emoluments of those officers were originally determined, the business of the County Courts was never expected to increase to the proportions it had assumed. The hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) had hit upon the real reason why the remuneration of the Registrars was apparently so much out of proportion to their duties. If hon. Members would refer, they would find an explanation of the present law upon

    977
    the subject. By the Act 19 & 20 Vict. c. 108, the Registrars were to be paid £120 for the first 200 plaints entered in the year, and £5 for every additional 25 plaints entered up to 1,000, and then £4 until the number reached 6,000; and out of this remuneration the necessary clerks were to be paid by the Registrars. If the number of plaints exceeded 6,000, the net salary was not to exceed £800, with £70 for clerk-hire. This was altered by a later Act of Parliament, which specified that on the occurrence of any vacancy in the office of High Bailiff the Registrar should perform the duties of High Bailiff, with a moderate scale of remuneration. It was never contemplated at that time that the number of plaints would exceed 8,000; but, as a matter of fact, the number of plaints frequently exceeded 8,000 in the year. The County Courts had proved to be rather a favourite tribunal, and the number of plaints had greatly exceeded what was originally anticipated. He was free to confess that the Registrars were at present remunerated to a far higher amount than was reasonable and fair. That was his opinion. The question, therefore, came to this—what was the remuneration to be? He must say he had been rather surprised to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) complain of a disinclination on the part of the lawyers to hear observations on such subjects as these from persons outside the Legal Profession. For his own part, he (the Attorney General) never had such a notion, and he certainly never heard any such disinclination expressed by any lawyer in that House; while he might add that everyone was in the habit of receiving with favour any proposition that came from the hon. Member for Newcastle. The hon. Gentleman had recently introduced into the House a County Courts Bill, which contained suggestions that were received with the greatest possible attention by the House. He considered the proper mode of paying Registrars was by salary, and he should be glad if means could be devised to enable such a plan to be adopted. But there were many difficulties in the way of making such an arrangement. True, in large places, a reasonable salary might be easily fixed; but that would not be the case in small Courts. If the Registrars of these
    978
    little districts had a salary, the least which could be paid them would be a great deal more than the work they had to perform warranted. However, he might say that the Government, being perfectly alive to the anomalies which existed under the present mode of payment, would grapple with the subject, and take some steps which would bring about a more satisfactory state of things.
    MR. MELDONsaid, the fees paid to Registrars in England were enormous, and altogether out of proportion to the sums allowed in Ireland. Last Session, a County Court Act was passed for Ireland, under which it was provided that no Registrars should be appointed. But, on its being found that it was impossible to carry on the business of the Courts without such officers, the Government yielded, and consented to appoint them. But how were they to be paid? Seeing the large fees which were charged in England, it would naturally be supposed that the Irish Registrars, competent men as they must be, would have a fair and proper salary given them. The Government, however, gave no salary. After preventing the increased jurisdiction of the Courts being taken advantage of for some time, owing to their refusing to appoint Registrars, the Government said such officials might be attached to the Courts, but that the remuneration should be two or three guineas a-day for those days actually devoted to Court work. The result was, that the County Court Act was almost a dead letter in Ireland, owing to the shabby conduct of the Government towards the Irish—conduct which strangely contrasted with the proceedings in England. He was glad to hear the Attorney General say that he considered payment by salary the proper mode to remunerate Registrars; and he would take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, if in any measure he proposed such a plan for England, he should treat Ireland in the same way. Everyone admitted that it was of the utmost importance that the Irish County Court Act should be made popular as soon as possible; but, up to the present, everything had been done to make it almost inoperative.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Treasury took all the fees in Ireland, whereas in England £300,000 were voted by Parliament

    979
    to pay Registrars of the County Courts; besides which, probably, as much again was paid them out of the Court fees. This was very unfair to the Irish officials, and unless some alteration was made next year, he should mark his sense of such conduct by moving to strike out the whole Vote for English Registrars.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the hon. Member for Meath had fallen into an error in supposing that the English Registrars had salaries and fees as well. The fees would be found charged as extra receipts to the Exchequer, and these receipts were larger than the expenses—£414,000 coming from County Court work, and £67,800 from Bankruptcy business.
    MR. MURPHYdesired an explanation of the increase in the charge for stationery in the County Courts. He observed that £19,000 was asked for this year, as against £14,700 last year.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the increase of stationery represented the increased work in the County Courts.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKexpressed the pleasure he felt at having heard the Attorney General say he would endeavour to deal with the question of payment to Registrars. The County Courts were of great advantage to the smaller classes of litigants, and everything should be done to make them both efficient and popular.
    MR. PARNELLdid not understand the answer which the hon. Baronet gave to him as to the payments to English Registrars.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the Registrars paid by salaries had those salaries calculated on the scale of work done. Those salaries were covered by the fees, and though the scale might be altogether wrong, he desired to point out that double payments were not made, as the hon. Member for Meath seemed to suppose.
    MR. PARNELLthought Registrars had a direct sum as salary, and a percentage on the fees. ["No, no!"] He could not see how it was otherwise, when they were told that the net salary of a Registrar did not exceed £700 a-year; whereas the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had stated that the Registrar of the Manchester County Court had £2,768 a-year, and the Registrar of the
    980
    Birmingham County Court, £3,566. He could not see how they could have so much, unless the salaries were augmented by fees.
    MR. HERMONsaid, the whole question of payments to Registrars was under the consideration of the Committee on the three County Courts Bills which had been introduced into the House. He thought the whole subject might be discussed when the Committee reported.
    MR. J. COWENexplained, that the figures he had quoted appeared in a Return made to the House last year.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,068, 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 of Land Registry."
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was sorry to have to propose a reduction of the Vote. This Registry had now been established for several years, but little or no business had been transacted in the Court. Very few deeds had been registered, very few titles had been rendered indefeasible, and what had been done was done merely for the benefit of a few individual landowners. The whole amount received to the credit of this Court during the year was £995 5s. 6d., and yet the expenditure was no less than £5,418. The time had arrived when the Committee ought to express its opinion as to the undesirability of continuing at a constant expense a scheme which had proved to be an utter failure. He begged to propose to reduce the Vote by £4,422 15 s. 6d., which was the difference between the amount of the expected receipts and the sum expended.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that there was a certain inconvenience in proposing to reduce the Vote by that particular sum, and he suggested that the hon. Member should propose to reduce the Vote by some other sum, so as to raise the question of principle.
    MR. WHITWELLthereupon moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £3,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,068, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

    981
    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 of Land Registry."—(Mr. Whitwell.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, the Act of Parliament relating to Land Registry was passed in 1875. It was not then expected that the benefits of a registry of title would be immediately apparent to landowners, and it was not anticipated that the measure would be at once a complete success. It was, in fact; admitted by everybody who was concerned in the passing of the Act, that some considerable time must elapse before its provisions would be appreciated by the country, and before those persons who were possessed of land would take advantage of its provisions. He would admit fully and freely to the hon. Member who had moved to reduce this Vote, that up to the present time no great amount of business had been done in the Land Registry Court. It was true that the business transacted last year exceeded to some extent the amount of business done in previous years; but still, it must be admitted that, up to the present time, the number of titles registered had been comparatively insignificant. But the question of the registration of titles was one of the greatest moment and importance. It had been discussed over and over again in Parliament. Bills had been brought forward by eminent lawyers, and some measures had been passed on the subject. Notably, a measure was passed in 1862, which was advocated by the late Lord Westbury, than whom, he supposed, there had scarcely ever appeared a man of greater power and grasp of intellect, and more capable of dealing with a subject like this. But the great difficulty lay in this point. Everybody admitted it would be an immense advantage if they could have a satisfactory and efficacious registry of titles to land. It would simplify the transfer of land, and also cheapen it to a very considerable extent. But then came this very difficult problem, with which those who agreed to the proposition he had just mentioned were obliged to deal—namely, how could an Act be framed that would provide for the effiacious registry of titles, unless they made registration of titles compulsory? That was the difficulty
    982
    which had presented itself to the mind of everybody who had endeavoured to deal with this question. The desire of those who had brought forward measures on this subject was to pass an Act which would be effectual, and which, at the same time, would not be tyrannical. When Lord Westbury passed his Bill into an Act in 1862, it was thought to be a compulsory measure, but it turned out not to be so. The scheme was to elaborate. The question of boundary came in, and the scheme required a machinery which was too complicated. Whatever the reason of the defect might be, the result was that the Act was never much resorted to. It was thought, in 1875, that that Act might be very considerably improved and amended, and that a new system might be inaugurated which, without being compulsory, would do the work well. The most eminent conveyancers and other persons who had the greatest possible amount of knowledge of real property law, came to the conclusion that a measure might be enacted which would have the desired effect without being compulsory. There existed in this country the strongest objection to a measure which would compel people to register their titles, whether they liked to do so or not; because, when men had landed property, they, of course, did not wish to put on the register a title which might be defective. If their title were a good one, they could not improve it by putting it on the register; but if it were a bad title, they would, by putting it on the register, proclaim the fact to all the world. However, the Members of that House, and of the other House, who took an interest in this matter, thought they understood it better than anyone else. Accordingly, in 1875, they proposed a scheme, and introduced a Bill, which was passed into law with, he believed, the assent and approval of his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell). At all events, the great majority of the Members of both Houses of Parliament approved the measure, and it therefore became law. It was so complicated a measure, that he should not endeavour, on the present occasion, to explain its provisions. Indeed, he did not know whether, if he made the attempt, he should be successful; but this he knew—that no one who spoke when the Bill was being passed

    983
    into an Act ever imagined that it would work efficaciously all at once. It offered certain advantages to a landed proprietor who chose to register his title. If he chose to register a title that was defeasible, that title would, in process of time, become a good title. It was thought the advantages held out by the Act to the community of landed proprietors would induce them ultimately to avail themselves of its provisions. This might—and he hoped would—eventually happen, although on this point he expressed no opinion of his own. Certainly, the provisions of the Act had already been resorted to by gentlemen who possessed a considerable portion of land, which they wished to turn into building plots. In such a case, they resorted to the provisions of this Statute, because, by doing so, they were enabled to make at once a good title to anybody who wanted to buy a little building plot, and, consequently, they got a higher price than they otherwise would for the land they offered for sale. This subject had been very recently investigated. Not many days ago, on the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams), the attention of the House was drawn to it. Like many other people, his hon. and learned Friend had a plan of his own which was the very best that could be adopted, and he suggested to the Government that they should consent to the appointment of a Select Committee which should go into the matter thoroughly and ascertain whether, if they could not have a satisfactory registration of titles, it might not be possible to have a satisfactory registration of deeds. Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable that the subject should be investigated to the fullest possible extent, and agreed to the appointment of a Select Committee, which would have the benefit of all the ideas of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs, and of any other Members of Parliament who might choose to go before it. That Committee had now been appointed, and he submitted to the hon. Member for Kendal that it was not quite fair, at such a time, to move to reduce the salaries of the officers who had been appointed in the Court of Land Registry. Those gentlemen, it should be remembered, had been appointed by
    984
    Act of Parliament. They had left their ordinary professional pursuits to serve in these offices; and, at all events, while the matter was being considered by the Select Committee which the Government had consented to appoint, it was not very reasonable to ask the Committee of the Whole House now to reduce this Vote by £3,000, or by any other sum. If the Select Committee, after investigating the whole matter thoroughly, should arrive at the conclusion that it was useless to have a registration of titles, they would, of course, say so; and if they came to the conclusion that a registration of deeds would be effectual, it might be thought that such a scheme might be carried out by the staff which now existed in the Court of Land Registry. Indeed, he had heard that one of the gentlemen who held an office in this Court saw no difficulty whatever in carrying out, without any additional expense, a scheme for the registration of deeds, and was, in fact, in favour of such a scheme.
    MR. M'LARENwished to call the attention of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury to the contrast between the present Vote and that for the Registry of Deeds in Scotland. In the present case, three-fourths of the expenditure was lost, or made up by the public. In the case, however, of the Registry of Deeds in Scotland, the expenditure was £36,000, while the income was £44,000. Therefore, the landowners of Scotland paid every farthing of the expense of registration, and also a surplus of £8,000 a-year. Hon. Members from Scotland contended that the surplus was illegal, being contrary to the clauses of the Act of 1867, and that the fees ought to be reduced; but, on the present occasion, he merely desired to draw the attention of the Committee to the contrast between the English and the Scotch Vote. The lowest clerk in the English Land Registry received from £250 to £350 a-year; whereas some of the clerks in the office at Edinburgh, who had been 13 years in the Government service, got only £90 a-year.
    MR. GREGORYobserved, that in England they had only a registration of titles, while in Scotland there was a registration of deeds. He believed the Scotch system worked very well, and he hoped that some evidence as to its working

    985
    would be given before the Select Committee which had just been appointed to inquire into the registration of land in England. The gentlemen who held office in the Court of Land Registry possessed great abilities; but the failure had been caused by the difficulties presented by the system itself. A Royal Commission found that Lord Westbury's Act contained principles which were antagonistic to its effectual working. First of all, it required an indefeasible title—namely, one which they could force on an unwilling purchaser. It required, too, that notice should be given to every adjoining owner or occupier of land. That, of course, involved raising every possible right relating to a boundary. A fence, a ditch, a right of way, or any other right, which, perhaps, had been dormant for centuries, was immediately aroused by a notice of this description. Such a notice put a man upon his rights, and he must either litigate in defence of them, or else abandon them. Again, Lord Westbury's Act required that when a title was once placed upon the register, it should always be kept there. Consequently, if an owner wanted to cut up his land into small portions, every one of those portions must pass through the register. That process was expensive, and it constituted another objection to the registration of land. Subsequently, another Act of Parliament was passed, which provided for the registration of defeasible as well as indefeasible titles. That Act had been in operation for about four years. A certain number of titles, but not a great many, had been registered under its provisions. It should be borne in mind that although there were in this country very few titles which could be upset, yet, at the same time, there was scarcely a title which would pass a strict investigation without requiring a good deal of explanation; and all this naturally involved expense, which people did not care to incur. If it were determined to establish a registration of deeds, the existing machinery might be employed to carry it out. Of course, he could not answer for the recommendations of the Select Committee; but what he himself contemplated was that this Land Registry Office might be made the centre of a system of registration for the whole country. In conclusion, he expressed a
    986
    hope that, in the circumstances, his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal would not press to a division his Motion to reduce the Vote.
    MR. RAMSAYunderstood that the object of his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal was to point out that the Committee voted a sum of money annually for the maintenance of a Department which was practically of no use, and also to suggest the expediency of abolishing it altogether. His hon. Friend accordingly proposed that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £3,000, in order to raise the general question. He thought the remarks of the Attorney General and of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gregory) were sufficient to show that unless registration was, in effect, made compulsory, past experience indicated that it was useless to continue this system of registration at all. It had often struck him that the people of England were induced to adopt a cumbrous complicated system in order to attain an end which could have been attained much more easily if they had availed themselves of the experience of other parts of the Kingdom. The Scotch system of registration of deeds was not a matter of legal obligation, but was practically compulsory, because used as a means of additional security. He could not see how there should be any hesitation in adopting a system whereby all deeds or prospective deeds should be registered. Each purchaser in that case acquiring any portion of land or real estate would register it for security, and in the case of succession to land the deed could be registered in the same way. He believed that if there were a system of registration of that nature in this country, the number of transactions would be such as to require a very large and increased establishment. They had been told that in Scotland the amount of fees collected was greatly in excess of the expenditure; but it was to be remembered that the number of transactions was much more limited than in England. He hoped, therefore, that before another year had passed, some definite proposition would be placed before the House to secure the prospective registration of all deeds.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, in the West Riding of Yorkshire there was a system which, if the owner of the land

    987
    pleased, might be used for the registration of his deed. It had the advantage of being so far compulsory, inasmuch as that if the register did not contain an account of the particular transactions to which the land was last subject, any other person who had transactions with the land subsequently might register and take priority of the person who had not registered. This registry had been in operation for a century and a-half. There was a registry in each Riding of the county, and in the case of one in the West Riding there was the additional advantage of a thoroughly well-kept index. There was no difficulty in searching, and the registry, which had practically become almost a registry for titles, was, for business purposes, nearly perfect. What was really wanted, according to his view, was rather a registry of transactions than of titles, since such registry became eventually a registry of titles also. In dealing with this question, he considered one of the first duties of the country was to take the example of the West Riding of Yorkshire.
    MR. RYLANDSremarked, that if the Vote passed it would be under protest. He did not suppose his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) would press his Motion to a division. If the Vote passed that evening, it should be clearly understood that it would not be brought forward next year in the same shape. He hoped the Committee, when it came to the consideration of this matter, would deal with it in a very broad and decided way. What had been done had only been to touch the fringe of a very great question. He believed the country would not be satisfied unless there was some system of compulsory registration of titles. This would greatly facilitate the transfers of land; and he hoped that if the Committee passed the Vote that night some different system would be adopted, or that the Committee would not be pressed to pass it next year.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKasked, why the Land Registry Office, which had been shown to have failed entirely in its operation, should be continued? He objected to the adoption of the Scotch system, which was well suited, no doubt, to Scotch requirements, but was not wanted in this part of the Kingdom, where there was a dislike to registration.
    988
    He thought that this Office, which everyone admitted to be a dead failure, should not be continued.
    MR. MELDONthought it had been demonstrated that this system, or this attempted system, had been a failure, and that being granted, there was no use in continuing this Vote year after year. It had been said that there were other experiments to be tried in the way of registration of land, but he thought the continuance of the present system would only endanger the success of any other measure that might be produced. Large experiments had already been tried, and the system in Scotland and Ireland had been perfectly successful; but it was to be remembered that in Ireland they had a system for recording titles as well as deeds. He asked, why should the Committee continue this wanton expenditure of money in trying to keep up a system admitted by everyone to have failed? He considered the discussion of that evening would be eminently useful, and hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal would go to a division, and take the opinion of the Committee as to whether this expense should go on.
    MR. WHITWELLhad no intention of raising a discussion upon the question of land titles in general. It had been admitted that Lord Westbury's Act of 1867 had failed, and that the Act of 1875 was also a failure; but, as the Attorney General had pleaded for a respite only, he thought the poor Court must have it as far as he (Mr. Whitwell) was concerned, on the full understanding that execution be inflicted next year, unless it could really show such good arguments as would induce the House to continue its existence. The Attorney General had said he believed the Court was a convenience to some parties who had registered their titles; but he must say that the House did not vote money for the benefit of individuals, and, therefore, that argument was inapplicable.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, there had been no failure with regard to the registration of deeds in Scotland, where the moment a man purchased property of any kind, be it great or small, it was registered; and, unless it were registered, there was no security at all, because the person who sold it to him might fraudulently go and sell it to another, and if that person

    989
    who had no moral title should put it on the record, he could secure the property.
    MR. BIGGARasked if the Committee were to continue a system of spending money to the extent of £5,000 or £6,000 a-year? They had been told that the fees of the Court were very high, and that being the case, the amount of business transacted by the three clerks must be merely nominal. He thought they would be only doing their duty by doing away with the whole establishment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,884, 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 Police Courts of London and Sheerness."
    MR WHEELHOUSEhoped the Government would take some steps to regulate this Vote, at all events, as far as the Metropolitan district was concerned. The City of London nobly took upon itself its own expenses in this matter. He admitted that the Courts did their work thoroughly, fairly, and well; but he did not, and never could, understand upon what earthly principle the Metropolitan district was allowed to take all the expenses of stipendiary magistrates, salaries, and the providing and re-building of courts out of the Imperial fund of the Exchequer, dealing with them as a question of Imperial expense and revenue; whereas, if any one of the country districts required stipendiary magistrates, the town itself was rated for the purpose of providing both the buildings and the salaries. He thought the fairest plan would be to deal with the question of stipendiary magistrates in the country in the same way as they were dealt with in the Metropolitan districts. At all events, what was fair for one was fair for another. The present system, as regarded the country districts, was the most unfair system possible. Supposing that they had Courts and stipendiary magistrates in Leeds, they would be paid for out of the rates of Leeds; but, in the districts around London, it was
    990
    a totally different thing. If it were right for one district to have this money, it was right for the other. The county districts were called upon to pay not only their local rates for this purpose, but their contribution to the Imperial Revenue for Metropolitan purposes. He thought that, in fairness, the Metropolitan ratepayers should pay for their own police courts, as was done by the ratepayers of Leeds. One thing or other was right for both; but a divided payment could not be right for either. In his opinion, the expense which appertained to the country districts for these Courts ought to be paid from the Imperial Exchequer; and he hoped the time was fast approaching when they would have but one system, and that system a fair one.
    MR. WHITWELLpointed out to the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse), that the Courts did not. cost any money, but made a profit over the expenses, no less than £18,000 having been received as fees.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked, if there were any sum included under this head, intended as a special remuneration to that police magistrate who lent himself to the sham inquiry into the case of Sergeant M'Carthy? ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The expression used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan cannot be allowed to pass, relating, as it does, to a process of law. I, therefore, call upon him to withdraw it.
    MR. O'DONNELLwas not aware that the inquiry was a process of law, and could not regard it as anything but a "sham inquiry."
    THE CHAIRMAN: I distinctly called upon the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw the expression used. The course now taken by him is disrespectful to the Committee and inconsistent with the usage of Parliament. The hon. Member having failed to withdraw his words, I must submit the conduct of the hon. Member to the Committee.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not know whether the Committee is competent to deal with this question, or whether it will be necessary to refer it to the House; but it is quite clear that it would be improper, if you, Sir, consider a particular expression as out of Order and not consistent with Parliamentary usage, that it should be allowed to pass. If the hon. Member

    991
    for Dungarvan will withdraw the expression, which I think he must have used inadvertently, not being aware that it was not a proper Parliamentary expression, of course, we need take no further action; but if the hon. Member declines to withdraw, it will be necessary that we should move to report Progress, and submit his conduct to the House.
    MR. PARNELLfelt very strongly on this point himself, and certainly agreed with the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. It had, however, been ruled to be out of Order. The people of Ireland also considered that this inquiry was of the nature described by the hon. Member. ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member, that he must not enter into a discussion of the merits of that question. I understood the hon. Member to rise for the purpose of speaking to a point of Order.
    MR. PARNELLthought the point of Order had already been ruled by the Chairman.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I laid down what I believed to be the Rule of this House with regard to the language to be used in this House. I called on the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw an expression which he used, and which I considered unbecoming. The hon. Member having refused to withdraw that expression, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and further called upon him to withdraw. I expected that the hon. Member would at once have withdrawn that expression; but as the hon. Member for Meath rose, I presumed he was going to speak to a point of Order.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the ruling of the Chairman was that it was not in Order to make that charge—namely, a charge of "sham inquiry"—against a judicial process. But the inquiry was not a judicial process. It was true that a judicial process had taken place in Dublin, but that was in the form of a coroner's inquest; but the inquiry directed by the Government was not a judicial process.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise to Order. I understand the question before the Committee is not what was the character of the inquiry, but whether the hon. Member for Dungarvan, having been called upon
    992
    by the Chairman to withdraw a certain expression, ought or ought not to accept the ruling of the Chair, and whether the ruling of the Chair is or is not to be supported?
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERhad inferred that the question of this inquiry was to have been brought forward at a later stage. With reference to the point of Order, it seemed to him that the Chairman had looked upon the expression "sham inquiry," as not merely reflecting upon the police magistrate who conducted it, but upon the Government who authorized that inquiry.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in Order for the hon. Member to enter into a discussion on the expression which I called upon the hon. Member to withdraw, as appearing to me improperly applied to a legal proceeding conducted by a public official. I must now again call upon the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw that expression.
    MR, O'DONNELLsaid, he had great respect for the ruling of the Chair, and the reason he objected to withdraw was that he thought the Chairman was not acquainted with the real facts of the case. Out of respect for the ruling of the Chair, he would withdraw the words "sham inquiry," and for "sham" would substitute "unreal"—the unreal inquiry. He would ask if there appeared in this Vote any special remuneration to the police magistrate who lent himself to the unreal inquiry into the death of the late Colour Sergeant M'Carthy? ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The words I ruled to be out of Order were "lent himself to a sham inquiry." It was not merely "sham inquiry" that I objected to, but the imputation cast upon a judicial proceeding by the expression that a magistrate had lent himself to a sham inquiry.
    MR. O'DONNELL: What I say now is, that it was an unreal inquiry.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not for me, but for the Committee, to say how far the explanation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan is satisfactory to the Committee.
    MR. DILLWYNasked, where and how, in the case of an hon. Member being convinced that an inquiry had been improperly conducted in any part of the country, such inquiry could be impeached except in that House?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The House would have abundant opportunities of censuring even the conduct of the Judges of the land by a distinct Motion to that effect. It is only my duty, as Chairman, in preserving Order in discussions in Committee, to protect, as far as I can, the Committee from any random expressions implying gross misconduct in the magistracy in the country. There is no question that any hon. Member can bring forward this matter in the form of a Motion.
    MR. HOPWOOD,with all respect to the ruling of the Chair, ventured to ask whether there were any limits to the freedom of speech with which hon. Members might debate on any subject? They found fault with the Estimates. They did not wish to do so in rude language, which would provoke retort and cause a breach of Order; but he appealed to the Chairman, for whose conduct in the Chair all had great respect, and would ask whether an Amendment, made in deference to the ruling of the Chair—respectfully, and, as he believed, unreservedly, made—was not sufficient to satisfy the dignity of the House and the Chair?
    MR. O'DONNELLwished to add, that if remuneration of this nature appeared in the Vote, he should have felt obliged to challenge the Vote, and the statement he had made had no casual reference to any official, but contained the pith of his objection to the Vote. ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMANreplied that the hon. Member for Dungarvan appeared to be under a misapprehension. Objection was taken not merely to the words "sham inquiry," but to the statement that a London magistrate had lent himself to improper and illegal inquiry. The hon. Member would, no doubt, see that the best course for him to adopt was to retract the whole expression.
    MR. SULLIVANsympathized with the question the hon. Member for Dungarvan wished to raise. He had evidently used a phrase merely to strengthen his argument, without intending to make any remark hurtful to a public functionary. Such an idea was, no doubt, quite foreign to the mind of the hon. Member, although the words conveyed a natural inference which appeared to infringe on the amenities of debate. His hon. Friend had, therefore, better withdraw them. He himself believed
    994
    the inquiry to be unreal to a certain extent. No doubt, the magistrate acted in good faith; but there were circumstances surrounding the case
    which made it unreal. He, however, strongly advised his hon. Friend to withdraw the words objected to.
    MR. BIGGARconsidered that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was justified in using the pointed language he had employed, and he did not think anything the hon. Member had said was of sufficient importance to occupy so much of the time of the House or to give rise to a formal Vote of Censure. He was not a critical judge of peculiar modes of expression; but in this case too much had been made of the words used by his hon. Friend.
    MR. O'DONNELL: To put an end to this dispute, if you will allow me, Mr. Raikes, although I still believe you are under a misapprehension with regard to the view I should have, if necessary, developed, I beg to withdraw the whole expression.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, they must have an answer to the question, whether any of this Vote was to be spent in defraying the expenses of the unreal inquiry into the death of Colour Sergeant M'Carthy?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that this Vote covered the salaries of the police magistrates of London, and the salary of the magistrate in question was included, but there was no addition to the sum voted last year.
    MR. PARNELLasked, that when a Supplementary Vote was brought forward, whether the special amount for the expenses of this magistrate in connection with the inquiry would be indicated?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Certainly; I have nothing to conceal in this matter; and should a Supplementary Estimate be necessary—I do not think it will—the Vote will appear in its proper place.
    MR. PARNELL: Then, if no Estimate is necessary, these expenses will be paid out of some other Vote; and, if that is so, I am determined to take a division on every Vote which has any possible reference to this inquiry. It will save the time of the Committee, if the Government will let us know which Vote these expenses come under.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER MR. O'CONNOR POWER moved to report Progress. This matter had been

    995
    described by the Chairman as a legal inquiry, and as the matter was an important one, he wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he regarded the inquiry into the death of Sergeant M'Carthy as a legal inquiry or not? The magistrate went to Dublin and took evidence, but he did not take it on oath. In his opinion, they could not have a legal inquiry without evidence upon oath. He would not go an inch further until that question was answered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Connor Power.)
    MR. SULLIVANalso would like the Secretary of State for the Home Department to state in what form the expense of the inquiry would be brought before the House. If the present time was not the proper occasion on which to discuss the matter, when would their opportunity come? He wished to be real and earnest, and would not take up the time of the Committee then, if they could have a fair and legitimate opportunity at another time.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that these Estimates were prepared before Parliament actually met, and included all the expenses thought necessary; but the question of the inquiry into the death of Sergeant M'Carthy arose afterwards, and these Estimates, therefore, had nothing to do with that inquiry. He need not say anything in defence of the magistrate appointed to make the inquiry, because he stated at the time the name of the gentleman to whom he should refer the matter, and no objection was made, or could have been made, by anyone. Of course, it was not a legal inquiry, for there was not a person in England who could have, under the circumstances, taken evidence on oath, except a special Act of Parliament had been passed for the express object. The gentleman he selected to make the inquiry was fully competent to do so, and he should be prepared to defend him when the proper time came.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: That clearly establishes the fact that the Chairman was incorrect in his description of the proceedings as a legal
    996
    inquiry. ["Order, order!"] Yes; the Chairman described it as "a process of law," and the Secretary of State for the Home Department now says it was not a legal inquiry. ["Order!"]
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERventured to submit that it was impossible to conduct their Business, if their Chairman were to be subjected to such remarks. The hon. Member would see that his observations were of such a character that he ought to withdraw them.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. PARNELLasked, out of what funds were the expenses of this inquiry to be paid? He did not understand how such an inquiry could be held without expense, and he wanted to know where the money was to come from?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the Vote which was then before the Committee had been prepared before the inquiry into the death of Sergeant M'Carthy was even asked for; but that was hardly the time to discuss what the future Estimates of the Government would be. He would take care that when the proper Vote came before the Committee the matter should be shown. The present Vote did not, and could not, contain any reference to this particular matter. It referred to the salaries of the magistrates in England, and the expenses of police magistrates were charged on the Consolidated Fund.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (13.) £295,190, to complete the sum for the Metropolitan Police.
    MR. DILLWYNwished for some explanation as to the increased amount of the Vote.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONremarked, that at first the police expenses were raised by rates, but now a portion of the cost was paid out of the National Exchequer.
    Vote agreed to.
    (14.) £870,948, to complete the sum for Police Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
    MR. WHITWELLhad hoped that this Vote would have been modified, and that the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have been able to find time to deal with this question.

    997
    The amount asked for was an enormous sum, and the number of police in many places was far above the number really required.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the matter had occupied the serious consideration of the Government, but the increase in the number of police arose from the centralization of the populations in large towns. The Home Office endeavoured to get the Returns of the Police from all parts of the Kingdom by the end of the October Quarter, and then a comparison was made upon which the Estimate was founded. There was, however, a natural growth of the police force, in consequence of the growth of the population in large towns; but he hoped that the system now adopted would, by degrees, bring the wants of the different districts under the control of the Home Office, and then a great saving would be effected.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYdrew the attention of the Committee to the question of the Scotch police. In many parts of Scotland there were more police than were wanted; and it was, in his opinion, a mistake, on the part of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to regulate the number of police by the population. It was a melancholy fact that, notwithstanding the augmented grant, and the additional order which prevailed throughout Scotland, the number of policemen was steadily increasing; and that at a greater rate than the ratio of the population. It was also a remarkable circumstance, that, in the county which he had the honour to represent—Forfarshire—the inhabitants were now paying—or, at least, were paying last year—as much for the police force as they did before there was any grant given by Government at all. He desired to impress upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department the necessity of exercising a vigilant check upon the increase to which he had referred. If that increase went on at the rate it had been doing of late years, it would very soon absorb the additional Government grant, which would then, instead of being a relief to local burdens, be found to be no assistance whatever.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he must remind the hon. Member who had just spoken that he had alluded to a case which did not appear on the Estimates at all, There was no grant
    998
    given to localities in which the police had not reached a certain standard. At the same time, he thought the Committee would thoroughly agree that the proportion of one policeman to every 3,000 of the population—except in places where the people were of the most orderly character—was somewhat insufficient. As to Scotland, more applications had been received from that country itself for an increase of men than from almost any other part of the United Kingdom; and he was afraid it was in resisting some of those applications, that the Home Office had made itself a little distasteful to certain localities.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could bear testimony to the fact that the Home Office had tried in every way to keep down the increase in the police force to which allusion had been made. From the position he held in connection with the Lancashire magistrates, he knew that those gentlemen thought they had great reason to complain of the Home Office, because of the difficulties it had placed in their way in obtaining an additional number of constables. In that case, the application for an increased force did not come from the Chief Constable of the county, or from the Government Inspector, but from the local authorities spread over various parts of Lancashire. But, while it was only fair and just to the Government to say that they had tried as much as possible to keep down the number, he desired to remark that he did not think they should lay down a rule that there should be a certain number of policemen to the population. Population differed in different portions of the country; and some districts were more orderly than others, and could do with fewer policemen.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, there was no such fixed rule as the hon. Gentleman appeared to imagine. There was a certain ratio which was regarded and acted upon as much as possible; but it necessarily varied throughout boroughs and counties.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he did not blame the Government for the gradual increase which had taken place in this Vote; but he desired to point out the moral of their policy in giving a large additional grant to the police force in various parts of the country. Many hon. Members well knew—he knew perfectly well—places where, up to a certain time,

    999
    the local authorities were quite content with a smaller number of police than they now possessed; but whenever the tempting bait of the Government paying half, or whatever the sum might be, was held out, Town Councils in different parts of the country said—"Oh, it does not matter now; the Government provide so much!" To people who spoke in that way must be added those timid persons who said—"Here we are, 1,000 of a population, and there are only two or three policemen to protect us." In that way, the Vote was gradually increasing under the influence of strong temptation.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there could be no doubt that, in the old days, there was a great indisposition to supply additional policemen, and many of his Predecessors had had to use strong efforts in order to school some districts up to the proper mark. When this extra Vote came into operation, it was determined that, as far as possible, the effect of the Government grant should not be in any way to increase the applications for police from the various localities throughout the country; and before he came into Office his Predecessors had forced upon local authorities the necessity of keeping up their forces to the proper standard. It was quite true that formerly it was thought there ought to be a policeman to every 1,000 of the population; but that was all past and gone. That was not the rule or standard by which the Government now acted, in any shape or form. They took into consideration, not only the population, but the area over which that population extended; and, if hon. Gentlemen opposite had only witnessed the amount of pressure which had been brought to bear, not by Inspectors, but by the localities themselves, in order to an increase of the police force, they would not only have had some idea of the amount of labour which the consideration of their applications entailed, but they would have found that the number of those applications which had been made and refused was enormous. No doubt there had been an increase in the Vote; but it was to be remembered that there had also been an increase in the population. Then, again, in former days, it was only necessary to certify to the Treasury that the police were efficient; but now there was not only a certificate of efficiency
    1000
    required, but a certificate setting forth that there were not more men connected with the force than was absolutely necessary. He knew one borough in Lancashire where there had been a great fight on this subject. It was suspected that the authorities of that borough were making a sudden application on account of the increased Government grant; and it was pointed out to them that, in that case, either their police force must have been inefficient before, or they were attempting to make a raid upon the Government. There had been, as he had said, a great fight; and it was only after the most strict and careful scrutiny that that borough received any increased grant at all.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, he observed that in 1877–8 the Inspector of Scotland was paid £700. Now, the Estimate asked for was £850, showing an addition of £150. He should like to have some explanation in regard to this increase.
    MR. RAMSAYthought that if on no other ground than that of simple fairness, the paying of an efficient public servant in Scotland at the same rate as a similar public servant received in England amply justified itself.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the salaries of the Inspectors in England had been raised from £750 to £850 a-year, in consequence of their having been long in the service, and of the increased amount of work which they had to perform. When that was done, the Scotch Inspector, whose duties were equally arduous, and who was equally a valuable public servant, was placed on the same footing as his English brethren. Previously, the Scotch Inspector had been in receipt of £50 less than those gentlemen.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY,adverting to the point which he had formerly raised as to the state of matters in Scotland with regard to the police force, said, that while the local authorities were the best judges as to the number of men necessary to preserve peace and order in the different boroughs, those boroughs were much tempted to increase that number in order to obtain the Government grant. That view of the case was confirmed by the last Report of the Inspector General, who also pointed out that in some places the policemen did not get sufficient wages, and that in others their clothing might be better, and so on. All this, of

    1001
    course, tended to increase the cost of maintaining the force, and constituted, it might be, a mild, but still a very effective, form of compulsion. Local authorities were, practically, told—"If you do not attend to these matters we will be obliged to declare you inefficient, and you will get none of the Government grant."
    MR. ROWLEY HILLremarked that the system of subventions in aid of local rates was soon bearing the fruits anticipated by those who opposed such aids by the central Government—namely, in promoting local extravagance. Formerly, when the local funds were charged with three-fourths of the cost of maintaining the police, it was difficult for inspectors to induce local authorities to provide sufficient men to render the force efficient; but now, when the Treasury paid half the cost of the police, the Home Secretary informed the Committee that it was needful to curb the disposition of the local authorities to employ an unnecessary number of police, and thereby to make a raid upon the Treasury.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £332,118, 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 Superintendence of Convict Establishments, and for the Maintenance of Convicts in Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that were it not that there was a Royal Commission now sitting to inquire into the whole system of the discipline, the management, and the working of the Penal Servitude Laws, and also into the desirability of instituting some independent system of inspection other than that which now existed, he should have felt it to be his duty to take a division against the whole of this Vote. He had been for several years—ever since, indeed, he first looked into the question of punishment by penal servitude, and the method of its administration—very much impressed with the strong necessity which there was for reformation. Of course, he did not intend to deny, in the slightest degree, that the subject was a very difficult one. At the same time, he could not think that the way in which the Penal Servitude
    1002
    Acts had been framed, or the manner in which they had been carried out, had been calculated to diminish the inherent difficulty of the whole question. Hon. Members knew that in the old times prisoners in England were exceedingly badly off—as, indeed, they were in most other countries as well. The labours of Howard were most successful in bringing about a reformation in sanitary conditions; but he ventured to think that, in some respects, the treatment to which prisoners received into those penal servitude establishments had been exposed in their own time, and within the last few years, exceeded in atrocity any to which Howard had directed his attention with so much benefit. With regard to those establishments, he had always insisted on two pressing wants—namely, the want of independent inspection, and the want of greater guarantees and safeguards, laid down by law, for the proper treatment of prisoners, and for securing them against ill-usage by the warders or other persons to whose authority they were intrusted. No one who had compared the Statutes which governed the penal servitude establishments with those which governed county and borough gaols, could have failed to notice the great difference which existed between them in those two respects—the question of inspection and the question of statutory guarantees. The reason for that was very obvious. The county and borough gaols were part of an old English system. The method in which they were managed had grown up to be an institution, and had extended itself with the institutions of the country. In fact, it was part of the local life of England. But penal servitude establishments were on an entirely different footing. They were instituted when transportation was abolished, in order that places might be found to which prisoners who were under that sentence might be sent; but, instead of the careful guarantees with which legislation had surrounded the health and good condition of prisoners in county and borough gaols, they found in the penal servitude Acts an entire absence of any such safeguards or checks. He believed it was owing to this that there had been so many instances, within their own knowledge and recollection, of horrible treatment to prisoners confined in those convict establishments. His attention had been

    1003
    directed to this question in a very special way; because, owing to the faulty condition of the law of this country, it was not possible for them to make any distinction in the treatment of political prisoners who were sentenced to penal servitude and the treatment of prisoners who were convicted of other crimes and offences. That being the case, it so happened that when there was any disturbance in Ireland—when there was any attempt at insurrection, however moderate its dimensions might be—there was a batch of prisoners sentenced to penal servitude for life, or for a period of years, and those prisoners were sent off to Chatham or Portland with the commonest and most ordinary convicts. That, he thought, was a great mischief. It brought discredit on the Government of the country in the first place; and, in the second place, it forced men of pure minds, who in no way required that which was designed for ordinary convicts, to undergo an amount of suffering and discipline which could do them no good, and which could only tend to brutalize them—if, indeed, such natures could be brutalized. He had seen men who had been convicted of political offences and sentenced, as the case might be, to five, seven, or ten years' penal servitude, associated with the worst criminals. The men to whom he referred were men of amiable and gentle dispositions, whom one would almost think it a pity to shut up at all, or to submit to any corrective discipline. But it so happened; and he dealt with the question as he found it. He knew—and other Irish Members knew—that men who had been convicted of political offences had to herd with murderers and wife-beaters; and any hon. Member who took part in voting money to maintain such a system as that, lent himself as an accessory to a state of things which should not exist. As he had already stated, there was a Royal Commission sitting on the whole question; and he was, therefore, content for the present year to await the result of that Commission. But there were one or two features in the present Vote which he could not pass over in silence. They were features which showed that certain individuals who were in authority over those prisoners had scandalously and shamefully carried out their trust, and that they were not really fit for the
    1004
    common exercise of the functions which they were supposed to perform. He observed that the salary of the Surveyor General of Prisons and Chairman of Directors was put down at £1,000, and already two Votes on account had been made. He altogether objected to the conduct of this official, and therefore begged to move the reduction of the salary by so much as had not yet been, voted.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must name the precise amount by which he proposes to reduce the Vote.
    MR. PARNELLthought there had already been voted about four months' salary, and therefore he would propose to reduce the Vote by £600. He did so for this reason. Without going into the merits of the M'Carthy case, he would incidentally remark that he looked upon the Surveyor General of Prisons and Chairman of Directors as, in a considerable sense, responsible for that man's death, because he refused to forward to the proper quarter the recommendation of the medical officer of Chatham Prison that M'Carthy ought to be sent to Working Invalid Prison. M'Carthy was consequently left at Chatham Prison, when, according to proper medical authority, he ought to have been, sent to Working.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £331,518 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 Superintendence of Convict Establishments, and for the Maintenance of Convicts in Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSonly wished to say a few words on this matter. He quite admitted that as far as the Penal Servitude Acts were concerned, when they were first started, the whole thing was a matter of experiment. Transportation had been given up, and it was necessary to find a substitute, and this was done by passing the Penal Servitude Acts. Those Acts had now been in existence for a considerable time, and from matters brought under his notice, he considered he was justified in allowing an Inquiry into their operation. Therefore, he appointed a Commission, and he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say he would not fully enter in the Acts

    1005
    until the Report of that Commission had been made. He believed it would be a Report drawn up with very great care; and certainly its authors were Gentlemen who were thoroughly competent to deal with the subject. He had not risen, however, so much for the purpose of making these observations, as to refer to some remarks which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman with regard to a gentleman who had long served the State in many offices, and who, he believed, had acted most thoroughly well in all he had done. He did not believe there was a higher-minded or better public servant in England than Sir Edmund Du Cane, Surveyor General of Prisons; and he (Mr. Cross) would be unworthy of his position if, for one moment, he allowed the observations of the hon. Member to pass unnoticed, and refrained from saying that a more hardworking, more humane, and more devoted public servant was not to be found than Sir Edmund Du Cane.
    MR. O'DONNELLdid not wish to enter into a disputation about the humanity of the official in question, but would confine himself to referring to the remarkable error of judgment which he committed in refusing to forward to the proper tribunal the recommendation of the competent medical authority that Sergeant M'Carthy ought to be removed from Chatham to Working. Instead of doing his duty, he left the dying man to his fate. To say the least of it, this was a serious error of judgment, and threw unpleasant light upon the manner in which that prison official discharged his duty. Therefore, just as the right hon. Gentleman felt himself compelled to get up and defend Sir Edmund Du Cane, so his hon. Friend the Member for Meath had a right to say that, in his opinion, and that of the majority of the Irish Members, this official had been guilty of conduct which called for the most earnest protest.
    MR. HOPWOODwould not refer to any particular official, for he did not pretend to say there were not as distinguished and eminent gentlemen at the head of the Convict Departments as were to be found in any other Departments of the State; but he ventured to think that their rules and regulations very often led to unfortunate results, and it was much to be regretted that they placed such a degree of irresponsible
    1006
    power in the hands of the warders. If a prisoner committed a breach of prison rules, however slight, and the warder complained of it, the convict was sentenced to "three days' cells;" and very often he never complained for fear of having that punishment increased. They ought to endeavour to prevent suffering of that kind, when their desire was to reform.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 208: Majority 194.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HIBBERT,before the Vote itself was agreed to, desired some explanation as to the Colonial Convict Establishments. He saw that this year the grant had been increased, which had not been the case for many years. He should like to know the cause of this increase. He had always understood that the number of persons who were in the Colonies, and who had been transported there, was gradually decreasing, and, therefore, that the grant became less every year. Now, however, he found that they were called upon to make an additional grant. His own opinion was, that the best thing they could do would be to come to some agreement with the Colony to get rid of the grant altogether.
    MR. WHITWELLwould also like to draw attention to the same subject. It appeared that they had 300 prisoners in Western Australia, and their expenses amounted to no less than £31,000, or over £100 for each prisoner. For these prisoners there were no less than 14 chaplains, which seemed to be out of all proportion, especially when he found they only needed one surgeon. There were 29 warders, and the cost of superintendence was double that of victualling. He joined with his hon. Friend in hoping the Government would come to some agreement with the Colony to put an end to the annual grant.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould assure the Committee this was a subject which had now for some time occupied the attention of the Home Office and the Treasury, with a view to seeing whether something might not be done to do away with this large item. The amount was being gradually reduced,

    1007
    and the staff diminished, because the convicts died. What was the cause of the particular increase this year he could not at present say.
    MR. PARNELLdirected the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to an item in the Vote for payment to a Coroner. He had always understood that a Coroner was a functionary to a great degree independent of the Government. He had never known of a Coroner being paid by the Government. He supposed this Coroner was the Coroner for the county. He received £150 from the Government for extra duties thrown upon him by reason of Dartmoor Prison being in the county. This was a most improper application of Government money, and he trusted that it would not be continued.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONbelieved that this sum represented the contribution paid by the Prison for inquests held by the county Coroner. The prison authorities did not contribute in any other way to the salary of the Coroner.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that the money ought to be paid to the Grand Jury of the county. It was most objectionable, and even dangerous, that a Coroner, who ought to be independent, and to be able to put his finger upon, and denounce, abuses, should be in the pay of the Government, who, so to speak, owned the prisons. The money should, at all events, be paid through the rates.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas not at all satisfied that it was not so paid; but he very much agreed with the hon. and learned Member, and he would look into the matter.
    MR. RYLANDSpointed out that this was the only prison in connection with which there was a charge for a Coroner.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was informed, though he could not say whether his authority was a very good one—he had no reason, however, to doubt it—that at inquests in these convict prisons the juries were often composed of employés of contractors, tradesmen, and other persons having dealings with prisons. That was very improper, and appeared to him to indicate too much laxity in these matters. As the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said he would inquire into the question as to this Coroner's payment, he would not pursue the subject.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was sorry to trouble the Committee with another division; but he felt that he could not allow the Vote to pass without protesting once more against the conduct of one of the highest medical officers of the service. He referred to Dr. Burns. He did not wish to go into the old story of Daniel Reddin. He would only say that Dr. Burns was officer of the prison in which Daniel Reddin was tortured with a galvanic battery, to find out whether he was malingering or not. Reddin was now a confirmed paralytic, and he (Mr. Parnell) believed Dr. Burns was greatly responsible for his state. He had never found out anything to his good. He moved to reduce the Vote by the amount of Dr. Burns's salary—£450.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £331,668, 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 Superintendence of Convict Establishments, and for the Maintenance of Convicts in Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 213. Majority 195.—(Div. List, No. 158.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (16.) £365,409,to complete the sum for Prisons, England.
    (17.) £28,037, to complete the sum for County Prisons, &c. (Great Britain).
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTpointed out, that the Committee was without any information about the prisons transferred. The number and names of the prisons were not given in the Estimate in the hands of hon. Members, nor were the names or numbers of the prisons that were to be given up stated. The Government must have had some difficulty in preparing correct Estimates for the present year; but the Committee ought to know the estimated cost of each gaol during the last year, so that it might have been compared with the cost of these establishments in future years. The Estimates for conveyance and escort of prisoners seemed small. He understood that the Government were going to pay the cost of conveying prisoners backwards and forwards to different gaols, and if this

    1009
    were so, the Estimate seemed a very low one. There was also good reason for asking how the sum of £25,000 for new buildings was going to be laid out, and upon what prisons? He also wished to know when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) intended to give some intimation as to the time at which the different localties would be paid by the Government for the gaols they had taken over? This account might be a very complicated one; but the Government ought to give this information as soon as possible.
    MR. RYLANDSthought it natural that much interest should be felt in the first Estimate under the new Prisons Act. That Act had been recommended to the House on the ground that it would lead to an important saving in the expenses of prisons, and a greater profit on prison labour. There was now some evidence to show that those who thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department too sanguine, were justified in the opinion that the public advantage anticipated from the Act was not likely to be realized. The right hon. Gentleman anticipated that he would save £50,000 a-year in the cost of prisons. On this first year, the entire saving anticipated by the Department in the most favourable circumstances was only £27,000. As expenditure in Government Departments had a tendency to increase from year to year rather than diminish, this saving was not likely to continue. Upon prison labour, the right hon. Gentleman expected to obtain a similar advantage; but as the extra receipts now estimated were stated at £60,000, the profit expected must be considerably less than £50,000. The average cost of prisoners all over the Kingdom was of great interest. It had been represented by Government as enormous under the old state of things; but he had shown that in Lancashire, prisoners were maintained at the rate of £17 per head. In 1876–7, the cost was £27 per head for all the gaols under the control of the local authorities. That included all the small gaols which were so badly conducted, as well as the large gaols conducted like those in Lancashire. The result of the change which had been made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department was, that while the average cost of each prisoner throughout the Kingdom was, prior
    1010
    to the passing of the Act, £27 per annum, it now amounted to £25 4s. He quite concurred, he might add, with the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) as to the expediency of having much fuller information laid before the House on the subject than was furnished by the present Estimates. With regard to the Act itself, he thought if even it turned out that it worked somewhat economically, it was far from being a satisfactory measure; but he must confess that he had no great expectation, looking at the Estimates before the Committee, that it would be productive of economy.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he did not wish to discuss the policy of the Prisons Act. What he had risen to suggest was, that if not inconvenient, the Government should postpone the Vote, in order that they might be in a position to give the Committee more detailed information with respect to it. It was of the utmost importance that, in dealing with the Vote for the first time, the Committee should be made acquainted with what had actually been done under the Act; but, as matters at present stood, they knew little beyond what the number of prisoners was. Now, there would, in his opinion, be great advantage in having before them a statement, showing the number of warders and officers of every description employed in connection with their prisons, and giving an account generally of the way in which those prisons were managed by the Government.
    MR. ASSHETONexpressed his regret that the Committee, owing to the absence of the necessary information, were not in a position to form a judgment as to whether the Government had or had not carried out those financial reforms which they promised would be the result of the passing of the Prisons' Act. He should like, he might add, to know why it was that the very onerous duties of Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ordinary Prisons and those of the Chairman of the Directors of Convict Prisons were discharged by one gentleman? So far as he could see, it would give any one person enough to do to perform the former duties properly.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought it was perfectly natural that the inquiries which had just been addressed to him

    1011
    should have been made. He would answer them as far as he was able; but it was absolutely impossible for him to furnish the detailed information which
    was asked for, inasmuch as the whole system of prison management was in a transition state. During the past year, 37 prisons had been closed in England, and seven or eight more would probably be closed within another month. That process, as the Committee would at once perceive, involved a change of warders and other officers, and a great many local arrangements which could not be put on paper until next year. By that time he hoped to be in a position to place the Estimates before the Committee in such a way that they would be able to ascertain for themselves what had really been done. He might observe that the Estimate which was now submitted to the Committee was less than that which had been put forward when the Prisons Act was under discussion, and next year he expected it would be found that a considerable saving had been effected under the new system. At all events, the account would be set forth as clearly as possible, so that hon. Members might form their own conclusions. He, for one, had not the slightest fear of the result. As to the new buildings which might be required, no Estimate could be given for the first year, and he might also state that arrangements were being actively made with respect to the payments for discontinued prisons. In answer to the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton), he could only say that the point to which it related had been fully argued when the Prisons Bill was before the House, and that it was deemed wise to keep in view the desirability of having the authorities of the two classes of prisons amalgamated. The staffs of both were, as far as possible, being worked together to save expense; and, in order to accomplish that object, it was thought advisable that one gentleman should be the Chairman of the two Boards to which his hon. Friend alluded.
    MR. WHITWELLfelt that it was out of the question that anything like detailed information could be laid before the Committee this year on the subject of the Vote. Indeed, he was surprised that so many details had already been supplied.
    MR. MACDONALD,referring to the item of £500 a-year for remuneration to the Secretary for personal services, asked what was meant by such services, of which he regretted to find mention made repeatedly throughout the Estimates.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the personal services rendered in the present instance were connected with the organization of the new system under the operation of the Prisons Act.
    MR. PARNELLshould feel it to be his duty at some future time to direct attention to the new Rules for the regulation of prisons. As to the general question he was of opinion that, perhaps, one authority would be sufficient for the management of the two classes of prisons.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Rules to which the hon. Gentleman referred had now been in force for some time, and that their operation was being narrowly watched by the Government, with the view of seeing whether they could not be amended. Immediately after Whitsuntide he hoped to be able to lay upon the Table Supplementary Rules for the purpose of meeting certain deficiencies which were found to exist.
    Vote agreed to.
    (18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £183,665, 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 Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial Schools in Great Britain, and of the Inspectors of Reformatories."
    MR. W. HOLMSpointed out that in Scotland advantage had been taken of the Industrial Schools Act to, perhaps, a greater extent than in any other part of the Kingdom. While, however, the allowance per week for each child in England and Ireland was 5s., it was only 4s. 6d. in Scotland. That, he thought, was not fair to the latter country; he believed the increased expenditure in England arose very much from the want of economical management. There was no good reason, he contended, why Scotland should be

    1013
    placed in that respect on a different footing from either England or Ireland.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the circumstances of Scotland were somewhat different from those which prevailed in England. In the former country, for instance, the children could be fed on a diet of oatmeal, which was not found to answer in this country. The cost of maintenance was, therefore, greater in the one country than in the other.
    MR. RAMSAYthought the grant should either be reduced in England or increased in Scotland. There was no good reason to justify the difference which existed in the payments made for the support of industrial schools in the two countries.
    MR. W. HOLMS MR. W. HOLMS moved that the item for those schools in England be reduced by the sum of £7,000. The question was one which he could assure the Government created a considerable amount of irritation in Scotland, where the maintenance of the children cost quite as much as in this country, though the management of the schools was more economically conducted.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £103,000 for Industrial Schools, England, be reduced by the sum of £7,000."—(Mr. William Holms.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the hon. Gentleman would not divide the Committee on the question, which, he might inform him, was under the consideration of the Government. He would remind him that these industrial schools had conferred upon the country some of the greatest benefits of modern times, and that it would be a pity that anything should be done which would interfere with their usefulness.
    MR. M'LARENridiculed the idea that the expense of living was smaller in Scotland than in England and Ireland. Those who advanced that argument might just as well say, upon a comparison of the Northern with the Southern counties of England, that it cost more to keep an agricultural labourer in Yorkshire than it did in Devonshire. Each lived upon his earnings, which were very different. It had been proved with regard to Scotland, not that the expense was less, but only that the expenditure was ground down to a lower degree.
    MAJOR NOLANhoped that Irish Members would vote with the Scotch Members on this question, because the argument had frequently been used against the former that the cost of maintenance in Ireland was lower than in any other part of the Kingdom. That argument had been advanced with regard to the salaries of Civil servants, who were paid less in Ireland than in England; and the same contention had been made in refusing to increase the remuneration of national school teachers. It was the policy of hon. Members from Ireland to have the cost of maintenance considered, in the Estimates, as equal all over the Kingdom. He should vote with the Scotch Members, not because he wished to starve poor children either in England or in Ireland, but as a protest against the scale of maintenance being varied in different parts of the Kingdom.
    MR. SULLIVANhoped the Scotch Members would not vote at all. He understood that the promise made from the Treasury Bench was entirely satisfactory. He objected to the Vote, for the reason that they could not improve the Scotch child by pinching the toes of an English boy or girl.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, although Scotch Members had charged Irish Members with obstruction the other night, he should support them in their objection to this Vote, because he thought they were taking a practical course in ventilating a Scotch grievance at that moment. If they felt they were not fairly treated, it was perfectly open to them to move the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that, while it might be true that the Scotch people fully appreciated all that had been said in commendation of their industrial schools, the fact of their appreciation could be no reason for the State giving them less for maintenance than was given to similar institutions in England. He had no desire to have the children pinched or starved. He deprecated any such result; but he did not think it was at all likely to follow from the reduction of the Vote. When the hon and learned Member (Mr. Sullivan) spoke of the favourable consideration promised by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), he seemed to have forgotten that this was not the first occasion on which the subject had been

    1015
    dealt with in Committee of Supply. Scotchmen had before waited upon one of Her Majesty's Ministers for the purpose of pressing this claim. If it had been the first time, he would have been glad to accede to the suggestion that there should be no division; but, under the circumstances, he was not inclined to ask the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) to withdraw his Amendment, because they had no other means of pressing upon the Committee to place Scotland in the same position as England with regard to this question of maintenance.
    MR. FRENCHwas inclined to support his Scotch Friends, because he thought they had been hardly dealt with. It was all very well to say that the Scotch child cost less; but that might be the result of better management of the schools. He hoped they would be managed in Ireland and England as well as they were in Scotland.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYwould like to have a distinct assurance from the Government as to the course they intended to take, for he thought a clear case was made out that injustice had been done to Scotland. The two countries—England and Scotland—ought to be put on an equal footing. If it were understood that the Government would re-consider the question, he should be inclined to ask the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) to withdraw his Amendment; because a Motion to reduce an English Vote did not seem a good way to obtain a boon for Scotland.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, what Scotch Members wanted was equal distribution of State aid. Therefore, he did not think that a case had been made out to induce his hon. Friend (Mr. W. Holms) to withdraw his Amendment. He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would undertake to give the matter serious consideration, and not allow it to be put off from day to day, without anything being done, which had been the case, to his knowledge, for many years.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had endeavoured to assure hon. Members that he would consider this question with a view, if possible, of getting rid of the grievance complained of. He could only leave it to the Committee to accept that assurance, which he now repeated.
    MR. W. HOLMSdisclaimed any intention of obstructing the Business of the House, as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell).
    MR. PARNELLexplained, that he had made no charge of obstruction. He had merely said that the hon. Member (Mr. W. Holms) was doing that which Irish Members had been doing who had been charged with obstruction—a charge which they positively disclaimed. He had wished to imply that the hon. Member was within his right.
    MR. W. HOLMShad only said that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) had made a suggestion implying that he had taken an obstructive course. He ventured to think that if Irish Members were as economical of the time of the House as Scotch Members, Business would proceed much more rapidly than it did. After the assurance from the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), he would not press his Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHcalled attention to the small contribution of the parents towards the maintenance of their children at these industrial schools. Valuable as these institutions were, their cost was very large, and the proportion paid by the parents, he found, did not amount even to one-tenth of the sum expended. Their contribution did not exceed 3d. a-head per week; whereas each child would have cost them from 2s. to 3s. per week if kept at home. A few years ago, attempts were made to remedy this disproportion; and he wished to know whether those endeavours had succeeded, or whether the matter was still under the consideration of the Home Office?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONagreed with the noble Lord as to the necessity, as far as possible, of making the parent liable for the maintenance of the child while he was at the institution; but the noble Lord was quite aware that the difficulties were very great, first, in the magistrates ascertaining the amount which the parent could contribute; and, secondly, the difficulty of collecting the contribution. In consequence of the adoption of a new system, the sum collected had considerably increased.
    MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGdirected attention to the item for the Training of Boys in Ships. In England there were 774 children for whom 6s. a-head per week was allowed, and in Scotland the number was 706, for whom the same rate of contribution was given by the State. But, so far as Ireland was concerned, not a shilling was allowed for industrial training in ships, because they had no training ship on the Irish coast. There was formerly such a ship at Kingstown, but it was removed, and remonstrances were made in consequence of its removal. Boys had to be sent a considerable distance to one of these training ships, and their parents were obliged to pay the expense of the journey. He wished to know from the Government why the ship had been removed from the port of Kingstown, and why Irish parents were denied facilities which were enjoyed by English and Scotch parents? Unless he received an explanation of this anomaly, he must move the reduction of the Vote by the sum which 6s. a-head per week for 774 boys would represent in the Estimates.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONbelieved that the shipsin which these 774 boys were trained were at the charge of the local authorities, and the 6s. per head was a contribution in aid of the efforts of the local authorities. The same rule applied to Scotland. The local authorities in Ireland had not, he believed, attempted to establish this mode of industrial training. He supposed the hon. Member (Mr. M'Carthy Downing) referred to some training ships which were maintained on a totally different footing. There were three forms of industrial training—namely, the Reformatory, the Industrial School, and the Training Ship; and towards the cost of training the boys in these institutions the Government contributed, in certain proportions, towards local effort. With regard to the removal of the ship from its moorings at Kingstown, the hon. Member's Question on that point was one which his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) would be better able to answer. All that he could himself say on the subject was, that no Treasury grant applied to such a ship at Kingstown.
    MR. PARNELLinquired when the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) proposed to report Progress?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas reluctant to trespass upon the patience of the Committee, for they had been very industrious that evening; but he should like to conclude the English Votes before reporting Progress. There were two more Votes to consider.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (19.) £19,456, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.
    MR. HIBBERTasked a question respecting the Extra Receipts which, in a Vote, were estimated at £5,500, to be obtained from Unions for the maintenance of Lunatic Patients. He was under the impression that all the patients in this Asylum, with perhaps a few exceptions, were criminal lunatics, and as such they should be paid for by the State, and not by the Unions. The charge made to Unions was no less than £60 for each lunatic. He wished to know whether a plan could not be adopted by which lunatics, not of a dangerous character, might be sent to the County Lunatic Asylums, where they could be retained at a cost of from £20 to £25 per head?
    MR. RAMSAYcomplained of the excessive charge of £60 for every lunatic detained at Broadmoor, and compared it with the institution at Perth, where the cost did not exceed £28 a-head per annum. He contended that there was no reason why they should continue to support an institution like that at Broadmoor at such a high rate as £60 per head per annum; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would do well to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) as to placing the bulk of the criminal lunatics in the ordinary County Asylums. Broadmoor compared unfavourably with Perth Asylum with regard to the charges incurred in the medical department, and there was no heathier establishment than that at Perth. He did not know how long the Committee were going to vote these annual sums, in support of extravagance, which benefited neither the criminal lunatics nor the community generally. Although he attached no especial value to anonymous communications, he had received one respecting the administration of affairs at Broadmoor Asylum which was worthy of consideration, because

    1019
    there was a, primâ facie case against the management of that institution. He hoped the Secretary of State for the Home Department would give the Committee some assurance that progress would be made in remedying the defects in the management.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, no more females were now sent to Broadmoor. The Asylum was only used at present for the detention of males. With regard to the question of construction, he thought Broadmoor Asylum was altogether a mistake. It had been built most extravagantly, and in such a form as rendered it almost impossible to make it economically useful. When the Estimates came in on a former occasion he sent them back, with the intimation that unless they were reduced he should not present them to the House. They had accordingly been reduced by £50,000. If they amounted to the same sum this year, he should return them again. That was the only way in which he could reduce the Estimates. Unless a sufficient reduction could be effected, he thought that Broadmoor had better be turned to some other use. It would hardly be possible to keep the inmates there at as small an expense as at Perth. With reference to the item of £5,500, which represented the receipts from Unions for the maintenance of patients, he feared he could not give, at that moment, the explanation desired by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert); but the sum received this year was, he believed, less than last.
    MR. HIBBERTexplained the purport of his previous remarks. If the persons detained were criminal lunatics, they ought to be paid for by the State, and not by the Unions; but if the time of their imprisonment had come to an end, and they still continued lunatic, though not of a dangerous character, then they might be remitted to the Unions from which they came.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that had constantly been done.
    MR. RAMSAYhad taken the trouble to visit Broadmoor Asylum, in company with a gentleman who had no superior as a judge of lunacy questions. Their opinion was that nothing in the form or construction of the building could render necessary or justifiable the great cost that had been incurred. Therefore, the sooner the Secretary of State for the
    1020
    Home Department submitted to the House a proposal to repeal the Act under which Broadmoor Asylum was established, the better.
    Vote agreed to.
    (20.) £18,690, to complete the sum for Revising Barristers, England, agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 44.]
    (The O'Conor Don, Mr. Richard Smyth, Mr. Charles Lewis, Mr. James Carry, Mr. William Johnston, Mr. Dease, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Redmond.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 29th May.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. O'SULLIVANreminded the Committee that they were engaged all the previous day on this Bill, and thought that the promoters would not deny that the discussion upon it was fairly conducted. But there still remained six Amendments on the Paper to be discussed, and he would ask whether it was reasonable or fair that they should be asked, after 1 o'clock in the morning, to resume the consideration of a Bill of so much importance? He believed there never was a Bill which had received so large an amount of consideration at the hands of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The promoters first secured a day for themselves, they then got two days from the Government, and they induced their Friends to give them another day—making, in all, four days, which had been solely devoted to the discussion of this Bill. Yet the hon. Members who had charge of the measure were not satisfied without attempting to force it on at that hour in the morning. He was not prepared, however, to proceed with his Amendment then, and he begged leave to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
    THE O'CONOR DONthought that his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Limerick had given the strongest possible reasons why they should proceed with the Bill. He had shown to them the great amount of time which had already been occupied in its discussion; and, therefore, he had taken away from himself and his Friends any ground whatever for objecting to making progress. It was perfectly true that the Bill had received an amount of consideration in Committee that very few measures of this character usually received. It had now been in Committee for a very long time; they had spent days and nights in its consideration; and unless the House were determined to throw away all the time that had been spent upon it, he thought it was perfectly evident that they must proceed with it even at such an hour as that at which they had arrived. The Amendments remaining on the Paper were very similar in character to those which had already been amply discussed; and, therefore, he must press upon the Committee to persevere and endeavour to get rid of the Bill once for all. He considered that when the supporters of the Bill accepted the proposal which came from their opponents, that it should be a temporary measure, they would not be met any longer with that kind of factious opposition which had detained them already so very long in the consideration of the measure.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he could promise the hon. Member for Roscommon that if he intended to go on with the Bill that night, he would stay there as long as any Gentleman to oppose such a proceeding. He would appeal to the Committee whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given every reasonable facility for the passing of the Bill this Session? Under these circumstances, was 20 minutes past 1 o'clock a proper hour at which to take the discussion of a measure of this vital importance? They had an ample discussion on the previous day; and although he, for one, did not think that very much progress had been made on that occasion, yet there were hon. Gentlemen opposite who thought otherwise, and he would ask them, therefore, to be satisfied, and not to press the Bill at that unearthly hour of the morning. He would appeal, in the greatest sincerity, to the hon.
    1022
    Member for Roscommon to postpone the further consideration of the Bill in Committee until after Whitsuntide, when he could assure him that he, as an opponent of the measure, would give every consideration to it.
    MR. FRENCHwas sorry to have to oppose his hon. Friend and Colleague; but he did think it was unreasonable to ask the House to proceed at that hour with any Bill which was likely to give rise to a long discussion. There were some Amendments which had yet to be moved to the Bill, the discussion of which would occupy a long time, and he was not himself prepared at that moment to say whether he would vote for or against them. He would also remind his hon. Friend and Colleague that he had that day to bring forward a Motion in reference to a subject in which Irish Members took a great interest, and that was an additional reason why they should not go on with the Bill at the present time. If they attempted to proceed, it would only end—he was going to say in a squabble, but he believed that was not a Parliamentary expression——but in a wrangle, which would hardly reflect credit upon the House.
    MR. R. POWERhoped that the hon. Member for Roscommon would not refuse to listen to the appeal of his hon. Colleague. Really, the promoters of the Bill had done a great many extraordinary things; but none had been more extraordinary than the bringing on a Bill of this description at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. If the senior Member for Roscommon consulted his own interests, and particularly his health, he would not persevere in that course. The hon. Member had a most important Motion down on the Notice Paper for that day, and he was sure that it would take him two hours to explain fully to the House the various bearings of the very delicate question that was involved. If he forced this Bill on now he would not be in a position to do justice to that question. The first clause to be discussed was one which raised the whole principle of the Bill, and which would have to be discussed at great length. If they went on with this Bill, they would get into a most unseemly scrimmage. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] He would tell the Committee why. Because there were a number of hon. Members who were determined that the

    1023
    Bill should not be proceeded with, at that unseasonable hour, and they would continue to divide the House upon the Motions to report Progress, and that the Chairman leave the Chair. He was anxious that his constituents should know the opinions which he entertained on this question, and hon. Members were all aware that no reports were ever furnished to the papers of what occurred after half-past 12. He was reluctant, indeed, to waste his eloquence on the desert air. He observed that one-half the Members of the House were half asleep, and the other half ought to be asleep; and he would, therefore, really appeal to the good sense, the generosity, and the great constitutional principles which governed his hon. Friend's conduct in this matter, and ask him not to go on with the Bill at that hour of the morning. It would do no good to its supporters, and they might depend upon it that these proceedings after half-past 1 o'clock, did not tend to raise the House of Commons in the estimation of the country. He would appeal to his hon. Friend to consider this, and allow them to go home to bed quietly and soberly.
    MR. BARINGthought that hon. Gentlemen who asked the hon. Member for Roscommon to give way were asking the House to stultify itself. The House had, over and over again, by large majorities, expressed a decided opinion in favour of the Bill. It was of no use for hon. Members who opposed the Bill to say that they had new arguments to bring forward. Their arguments were worn threadbare. An hon. Member had just told them that the whole principle was to be discussed, as if they had not done that usque ad nauseam, and had not repeatedly affirmed the principle of the Bill. Did their opponents suppose that any arguments which they might now bring forward would induce the House to retract its opinion in regard to the measure? What they were asking them to do on the present occasion was to place themselves in a position which would reflect no honour upon them either in or outside the House.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped they would be permitted to proceed with the first Amendment, and when that was disposed of the Committee would consent to report Progress. He was by no means satisfied that his hon. Friends behind him
    1024
    would agree that he ought to make this proposition at the present stage; but this was not a reasonable hour at which to commence Business. He hoped hon. Members would agree that when the first clause was disposed of, Progress should be reported. If hon. Members would agree to that, he would vote against reporting Progress now, and would do his best to go on with Business.
    COLONEL NAGHTENsaid, that on behalf of "the front Opposition Bench," as the right hon. Member for Greenwich, who took so great an interest in this Bill, was unfortunately prevented from being present, he thought that was sufficient reason for reporting Progress.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 103: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 159.)
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he did not think it was treating the House fairly. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Go on, go on.] The new clause he had to move was as follows:—
    ''Total closing not to be carried out in any town or parish in Ireland until it is first ascertained by a vote of all the householders in each parish that the majority of the people are in favour of such total closing."
    He did not suppose that those who had charge of the Bill would object to that clause coming on for discussion. He expected strong support from the advocates of the Bill. It was not a Permissive Bill, because this clause would give power to allow people to prevent its coming into operation by voting against it. It was contrary to the permissive principle; but, at the same time, his clause would give power to the people to say whether the Bill should come into operation or not. If the Committee thought fit to discuss this Amendment, he would propose to the hon. Member for Roscommon that Progress should then be reported.
    New Clause,—(Mr. O'Sullivan,)—brought up, and read the first time.
    MAJOR O'GORMAN: I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, that you leave the Chair. I should like the hon. Member for Roscommon to look at the Bill now and compare its present condition with what it was when he first intruduced it. At that time it was a respectable-looking

    1025
    baby; but, contrary to all the laws of nature, it has become an absolute abortion, and it is his own Bill; for, miserable as it is, one of the chief supporters has denied all participation in its paternity. We never will allow this measure to pass. Nothing on earth will induce us to do so; and, if it were necessary, we propose remaining here until this day month, rather than suffer the measure to become law. I beg, Sir, to move that you do leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Major O'Gorman.)
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the hon. and gallant Member would not persevere in the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair. They ought not to persevere with the proposal of the hon. Member for County Limerick. They had already decided on the
    principle which the clause contained. The clause would allow to municipalities the right of taking themselves out of the operation of the Bill. It would be stultifying the Committee if the Committee were to give all the towns and parishes, as well as the municipalities, the power they had already refused to the latter. He had done everything he could to make the Bill a good one; but he was not going to do anything to stultify the Committee, and therefore he hoped the clause would be dealt with.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 106: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
    Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. O'SULLIVANasked, whether it was in Order to put the Question before there had been any debate upon the clause?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not a point of Order, and he had put the Question properly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 115: Majority 105.—(Div. List, No. 161.)
    MR. ONSLOWbegged to move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask
    1026
    leave to sit again. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would look over the Division List on this proposal, on the following morning, he would find that some of his greatest supporters had voted in favour of that being done. As one of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman, he could assure him that he should use his humble efforts to prevent the Bill from passing. The Bill should never have been brought forward at all; and, considering the opposition which it had met with, and the concessions which its promoters had made, he thought the hon. Member for Roscommon might very well have said—"The Bill is not the same as that which I first introduced, and therefore I will withdraw it." He should endeavour to thwart the measure in all its future stages; and he appealed to hon. Gentlemen whether, in all these circumstances, it was advisable to go on with the Bill? Why cumbereth it the Session? Why not cut it down at once? Why ask hon. Members to stop up, night after night, discussing it, instead of allowing them to get home peaceably to their beds?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he certainly felt, with his hon. Friend who had just spoken, that it was a very good thing to get to bed; but he desired to point out to the hon. Gentleman, and to other hon. Members, what the position of the Government was with respect to the Bill, and what had happened in regard to it. The Bill was
    one which, in its original form, was adopted by a very large portion of Members from Ireland, and by a majority in the House. The Government felt themselves unable to accept the measure in the form in which it was thus presented; but, having regard to the manner in which it was supported, they undertook to consider it, and to propose certain Amendments which, if they were accepted by its promoters, would induce them to give such facilities as they reasonably could for the further progress of the Bill. Well, the Bill was introduced; the Amendments proposed by the Government were accepted; and the measure had been gone on with since that time. It had been very fully discussed, and discussed, no doubt, at considerable inconvenience to some hon. Members. He mentioned that as a proof that, at all events, a large number of hon. Gentlemen were anxious to

    1027
    carry the Bill. He did not say that there was any undue interference with the proceedings of the House, when hon. Gentlemen sat up night after night for the purpose of promoting a certain measure; but their doing so certainly showed that they took a deep interest in the Bill which was under consideration. Well, the advocates of this measure had not only accepted the Amendments which had been originally proposed by the Government, but they had also accepted a very important Amendment which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther) had advised them to adopt, limiting the operation of the Act to a certain number of years. Under these circumstances, and having arrived at this stage, he did not think that anyone could fairly find fault with the promoters of the Bill for endeavouring to conduct it in such a manner as they considered best. On the one hand, he was afraid that he was not in a position to offer them very much in the way of facilities; and, on the other hand, he did not feel that he had any right to interfere with their liberty of judgment as to the way in which they should proceed with the Bill in its remaining stages. He would suggest, if he might, to hon. Members who intended to propose new clauses or Amendments that, instead of delaying, it would be more reasonable on their part to move those clauses or Amendments at the present stage, so that the opinion of the Committee might at once be taken upon them. Or, if they did not do so now, they might reserve to themselves the right of doing it on Report. He certainly thought it was not at all to be wondered at that the promoters of the Bill, having gone through so much, and having been supported by a large number of Members in bringing the measure to the point which it had now reached, should be anxious to proceed with it and to carry it forward.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAdeprecated the adoption of such a course as that of merely proposing dilatory Motions to the effect that the Chairman should report Progress, or that the Chairman should leave the Chair. At the same time, he hoped that, after the Amendment which stood next on the Paper had been dealt with, the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) would consent to Progress being reported.
    MR. SHAWsaid, that so far as he was concerned he was disposed to make a concession to the hon. Member for Roscommon, if the hon. Gentleman would make a concession to him. At the same time, he did not hesitate to say that the hon. Member had acted very fairly in making concessions during the progress of the Bill, and he did not think that, in that respect, the opponents of the measure had any ground whatever for complaint. He had an Amendment on the Paper; but he was perfectly willing to withdraw it at the present stage, and bring it up on Report, if the hon. Gentleman could give him any assurance that Report would come on at such a time that the proposition could be fairly discussed. It had been said, however, that Report would be put down for the first day after the Whitsuntide Recess, and that he regarded as quite unreasonable. Those for whom he spoke had no wish to prolong discussion on the Bill. They could now do but little good by sitting up in the House night after night and debating it. The only two Amendments of any consequence which remained to be disposed of, were that of which he had given Notice and that which the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth) had placed upon the Paper with regard to compensation; and, as he had already indicated, if any assurance could be given in respect to time, he would be willing to reserve his Amendment until the Report.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he desired to ease the minds of any hon. Members who might be troubled with reference to the Report. It was his intention to move, when the Report came on, that it should be considered that day three months. He considered that it was quite unjustifiable to ask the Committee to continue sitting at that hour of the morning (10 minutes past 2 o'clock), for the purpose of endeavouring to make some progress with the Bill.
    MR. J. LOWTHERhoped that the hon. Member who was in charge of the Bill would, when he thought of the interests which were at stake, see his way to affording an assurance that due Notice would be given, in order that there might be a fair discussion on Report.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he could not really understand these appeals which were made to him. An appeal

    1029
    had been made to him on a previous occasion, to the effect that if he consented to make this a temporary measure, further opposition to it would be withdrawn. ["No!"] He had consented to the principle of the Amendment which had been proposed in that direction; but he had only done so to find that, instead of the concession having any effect, he now met with the same opposition as before. His hon. Friend talked of his naming a day for the Report, as if he had at his disposal the remaining days of the Session. The day when the Report might be taken was not a matter within his discretion. He could not, except by consent, bring it on after half-past 12 o'clock; but, the Bill having met with such persistent and consistent opposition, its promoters had no other resource open to them than that of endeavouring to take advantage of whatever chance they could get. Hon. Gentlemen could stop Report being proceeded with after the hour he had mentioned; and they knew what likelihood there was, until the Government gave the promoters of the Bill another day, of it coming on at an earlier hour. In these circumstances, he could only tell his hon. Friends distinctly that, whenever he found an opportunity of bringing it forward, he should feel obliged to take advantage of that opportunity. What good, however, could possibly result from these constant wrangles in the early hours of the morning? So far, the concessions which he had made had not had the slightest effect in reducing the opposition to the Bill; and, at the present moment, he did not know that there was any real offer before him. If his hon. Friends would say that they would allow the Bill to pass through its remaining stages, and be reported to the House, then that would be some ground for asking him not to take advantage of every chance which might be afforded him of getting on with the measure; but, so far as he understood, there was no such proposal before him or the Committee.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that while he had suggested at a previous Sitting that the operation of the Act should be limited to a certain number of years, he had done so upon the merits of the proposition itself, and not in connection with any supposed understandings or
    1030
    agreements respecting other portions of the Bill, of which he had no cognizance, and which were not then before the Committee. As to the remarks that had just been made respecting the fact that he (Mr. J. Lowther) had not taken part in the last, or, in fact, it might have been added, all the recent divisions, he must enter a protest against the doctrine it was attempted thus to lay down—namely, that by the granting of facilities in respect of time which the Government had loyally carried out, they were bound, also, to record their votes in favour of a Bill for which they were in no sense responsible; and he must emphatically protest that he could not be expected to be attached to the triumphal car of the hon. Member for Roscommon at all hours of the morning, and to walk through the Lobbies in constant divisions upon a measure of which he had frequently expressed his disapproval. With regard to the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), he did not understand that hon. Gentleman to wish any specific day mentioned for consideration of the Report on the Bill. What he understood the hon. Member to object to was a particular day on which he did not think the Report ought to be taken up; and that was the first day after the Recess. It would be unreasonable to expect the hon. Member for Roscommon to name a day when the Report would be dealt with. That hon. Gentleman had not command of the time or the arrangements of the House.
    MR. SHAWsaid, he had intended to point out that it was not advisable to take the Report before the expiration of a certain period. There would be but a short Recess; Irish Members had long distances to go, and they had a good deal of business to attend to within a limited period.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, he had exerted himself on the previous day with the hon. Member for Roscommon in order, if possible, to meet the views of the more reasonable section of the opponents of the Bill; but now, whenever a compromise was suggested, the latter hon. Gentlemen appeared to be desirous of having it all their own way. There were surely two sides to a compromise; and if the supporters of the Bill mentioned a day, as a matter of fact, before

    1031
    which, the Report would not be taken, would there be an undertaking given, on the part of its opponents, that the threat of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) would not be carried out? If no such undertaking were forthcoming, and if the advocates of the measure were to be met with implacable opposition, there was no course open to those who supported the Bill except to push the measure forward by every means in their power, and thereby vindicate their own self-respect and the position and honour of the House.
    MR. SHAWcould only say what he had said before; and, in doing so, he spoke for himself alone. As far as his Amendment went, he was now willing to take it off the Paper and to bring it on upon Report, and he would strongly recommend other hon. Members to adopt a similar course. At such an hour as that it did not appear to him that there was any prospect or possibility of discussing Amendments with any degree of satisfaction.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that the remarks which he had made appeared to have been somewhat misunderstood. All he had intended to say was that it was his purpose to oppose the Bill on Report.
    MR. DICKSONsuggested that the opponents of the measure should allow the Bill to pass through Committee that night, on the understanding that the discussion on the remaining new clauses should be taken on the Report, and that the Report itself should not be proceeded with before the 17th of June. On such an understanding as this, the measure might now be reported pro formâ.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he regarded the proposal of the hon. Member as very reasonable, and he hoped that it would be agreed to.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, that on the distinct understanding that those who objected to the Bill would have an opportunity of opposing it on Report, he asked leave to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday, 17th June.

    TENANT RIGHT (IRELAND) BILL.
    (Lord Arthur Hill-Trevor, The Marquess of Hamilton, Mr. Mulholland, Captain Corry, Mr. Chaine.)

    [BILL 31.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that this measure was one of great importance to Ireland. He had given Notice of two new clauses which it was his intention to move; but the Committee could not be expected to discuss them at that late hour. Moreover, the Irish Members had all left the House under the impression that the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill did not intend to bring it on. Under these circumstances, he hoped that the noble Lord would allow Progress to be reported.
    SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWalso trusted that the Committee would agree to Progress being reported. He had two Amendments to bring forward which really touched the principle of the Bill.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Resolution [May 29] reported, and agreed to.
    Instruction to the Committee on the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill, That they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.
    House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.