Sitting of 3 April 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Wine Duties, appointed and nominated; Commons, Mr. Fawcett discharged, Mr. Shaw Lefevre added; Lighting by Electricity, nominated.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions (Financial Statement).
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * [118].
Ordered—First Reading—Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) [117].
Second Reading—Assessed Rates Act Amendment* [113].

PARLIAMENT—CLARE COUNTY WRIT.

  REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. SECRETARY CROSS reported from the Select Committee on Clare County Writ, That they had considered the matters to them referred, and come to the following Resolutions, which they had directed him to report to the House, to-

  259
  gether with the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them, and an Appendix.
  "That the office of Attorney General of the Colony of Victoria is an office or place of profit under the Crown within the meaning of the Statutes in that behalf.
  "That Sir Bryan O'Loghlen has since his Election for the county of Clare accepted the said office, and has thereby in the opinion of the Committee vacated his seat."
  Report to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [No. 130.]

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CAVAN WORKHOUSE.—QUESTION.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the attention of the Local Government Board for Ireland has been called to the evidence of Mary Eliza Kenny, nurse in the Cavan Workhouse, before the Poor Law Inquiry Commissioners, in which she stated that, owing to want of room, she had been obliged to put sick persons two in a bed; that she had, a few days previously, two children afflicted with itch in one bed; and, whether the Local Government Board have remonstrated with the Guardians on the subject or taken any action in the matter; and, if so, what is the date of the first of such communications?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I find that the Guardians of the Union referred to appointed a committee to inquire into this subject, and they took the evidence of their medical officer. I was surprised to find that the medical officer appeared to be of opinion that the practice alluded to was a legitimate one; and I was still more astonished to find that the committee itself did not consider such proceedings reprehensible. I will, however, bring the matter again under the notice of the Guardians.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—EASTERN ROU-MELIA—JOINT OCCUPATION.

    QUESTION.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can now give the House any information as to the reported agreement for a joint occupation of Eastern Roumelia by the troops of several of the great European Powers; and, whether the Go-
    260
    vernment are willing to undertake that this Country shall not be committed to share in such occupation until the House has had an opportunity of discussing the proposal?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I mentioned some short time ago that communications were going on upon this subject, and I can only add at present that nothing is yet settled. The policy of the Government on this subject was declared by our Plenipotentiaries at the Congress of Berlin. They did not propose such a measure as a joint occupation, but they were willing to accept it and join in it if it seemed likely to tend to the maintenance of tranquillity and to avert the renewal of conflicts between hostile races and creeds in that Province. That is the opinion which Her Majesty's Government still hold. The Sultan considers that he has full power to keep order in the Province; but we are naturally anxious that all steps should be taken which will avert the risk of bloodshed in the Province. I cannot add more at present. I am afraid I cannot give the undertaking which the hon. Gentleman asks for; although it is quite competent for him to call attention again to the subject.

  CEYLON—FOOD TAXES.—QUESTION.
  MR. POTTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will inform the House what changes, if any, have recently been made in Ceylon in the amount of taxation on home grown and imported grain; and, whether the system of farming the paddy tax has been entirely abolished, and what plan for the collection of the revenue derived from the tax has been substituted?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, no change has been recently made in the amount of taxation levied on grain in Ceylon, though an important change has been introduced in the mode of collecting that taxation which may result in some small diminution of the amount received. An Ordinance has recently been passed and sanctioned for the entire abolition of the farming system, which will be brought into effect district by district, according as the necessary information is obtained and the necessary machinery provided. This Ordinance provides three modes of commuting the tax—first, by a fixed annual

  261
  payment; second, by a fixed sum payable only in those years, when the land produces a crop, in order to meet the case of certain districts where there is a want of irrigation; and third, applying only to dry grain, by a sum varying with the estimated value of the crop, and payable only when the land produces a crop. Of course, it is intended that the first plan shall be that generally adopted.

  INLAND REVENUE—TEA DUTY.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. CHILDERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the average amount of the Customs Duty received on Tea during a fortnight; and, what was the amount of such Duty received during the last fortnight of March 1879?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Taking the receipt of duty for the year just concluded, the average fortnightly receipt is £163, 512, whereas the actual receipt within the last fortnight has been £474,213. I ought to add that in the last fortnight of the preceding year there was a very large extra receipt of tea duty, amounting to £258,989.
    MR. CHILDERS: May I be permitted to ask, Whether the large extra receipts last year were not then alluded to as occurring in consequence of the proximity of the Budget and the expectation of an increase of duty?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Certainly. I should think most people would know when there was an expectation of an increase of duty there is a rush to get that particular article out of bond.

  GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND).

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL MUREasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to amend the Scotch Game Law, in consequence of the recent poaching case in Renfrew-shire?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON): Sir, it is our intention to introduce a Bill very shortly for the purpose of mitigating penalties applicable to such cases as that to which the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend refers.

  NEW GUINEA.—QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Sir Arthur Gordon, the Governor of Fiji, has submitted to Her Majesty's Government any recommendation with regard to the establishment of a Protectorate over the Island of New Guinea; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to take any steps with a view to carry out such recommendation?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir Arthur Gordon has not recommended the establishment of a Protectorate over the Island of Now Guinea, nor do we propose to take any such stop. What has occurred in the matter is this. My attention was called some months ago to the several gold mining expeditions which had gone to New Guinea during the past year from the Australian Colonies and to the difficulties which might arise from the absence of any legally-constituted authority for maintaining order among the British subjects engaged in such expeditions and controlling the relations between them and the Natives. I consulted Sir Arthur Gordon whether it might not be necessary to appoint a Deputy Commissioner to reside in Now Guinea for this purpose, as has already been done in other Islands in the Pacific. In reply, he pointed out certain practical difficulties in the exercise of jurisdiction by a Deputy Commissioner in this case unless the settlement where it was exorcised was proclaimed to be British territory. There appeared to me to be grave objections to this course; but it is not necessary even to consider it now, as we have recently heard that the mining expeditions have almost entirely failed, and, therefore, probably what is required may be effected by arranging that the coast shall be periodically visited by a ship of war. But Sir Arthur Gordon will shortly return to Fiji, and has been instructed to inquire into the matter on the spot and make such recommendations as he may consider necessary.

  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE ACT, 1878—DOG LICENCES.—QUESTION.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed

  263
  to the fact that graziers, butchers, and dairymen are held liable to pay for dog licences, even when they keep dogs solely for use in tending sheep or cattle, while farmers and shepherdsin the same circumstances are exempted; and, whether he will consider the question of so amending section 22 of "The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878," as to place all persons who keep dogs solely for use in tending sheep or cattle upon an equal footing?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, this point was carefully considered when the dog licence was under our review, and it was found impossible to extend the exemptions to dogs of the class referred to. There must be some limit to the exemption of dogs, and it was thought a very marked distinction existed between the dogs employed by farmers, shepherds, and others, and those which often are allowed to wander about, and in respect to which it would be difficult to be quite sure whether they were employed in any useful occupation.

  GREAT BRITAIN AND TURKEY—THE CONVENTION OE DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE—THE ISLAND OE CYPRUS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. DODSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Annex to the Convention of Defensive Alliance between Great Britain and Turkey, and to the Correspondence respecting the addition of an Article relating to the payment or otherwise of compensation by the Ottoman Government for money expended by Her Majesty's Treasury on public works and improvements in Cyprus on the evacuation of the island by the British (Papers, Turkey, Nos. 36 and 43, Session 1878), What agreement has been arrived at; and, whether he will lay a Copy of the Document containing such Agreement upon the Table of the House?
    MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that the suggestion of the Turkish Government which was referred to had not been acceded to, and therefore no agreement had been arrived at, and there was no Correspondence subsequent to what had already been published on the subject.

  CUSTOM RE-ORGANIZATION SCHEME.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. RITCHIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the questions recently referred to by him as delaying the issue of the scheme for the re-organisation of the Customs have yet been settled; and, if not, whether he can state when they are likely to be settled, and the long delayed scheme issued?
    MR. J. HOLMSasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, as part of the scheme for the reorganisation of the Customs Department, the principle of which has already been decided upon by the Treasury, it is still the intention of the Government, as announced on the 27th of June last, to offer the terms of retirement under the Superannuation Act of 1859; and, if so, whether for the convenience of those who might wish to retire from the service, the Treasury could give an early notification to that effect to the Department?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON,in reply, said, that the details connected with the scheme of organization had not yet been settled; but he hoped before long to be able to announce that the scheme had been approved of, and that it would be carried out. In answer to the second Question, the re-organization of the Department would not necessarily involve any retirement, and there was no intention on the part of the Board of Customs to recommend the granting of special allowances on retirement.

  ARMY—WIDOWS OF SOLDIERS KILLED IN ACTION.—QUESTION.
  MR. R. W. DUFFasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as stated by a military correspondent of the "Times" of the 28th March, that widows of soldiers who are killed in action are not entitled to any pension from the State; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the War Department to make any provision for the widows and families of the men who lost their lives at Isandlana and Rorke's Drift?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, in answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that the widows and children of the soldiers in question are not entitled to any provision from the State, and that I am unable to propose any regulation to the Government on their behalf. But pro-

  265
  vision has before now been made from the Patriotic Fund, and communications have been going on with the manager of that Fund, in order to see whether its provisions can be extended to those cases. I am sorry that there are some technical difficulties in the way, and that I cannot give a more positive answer at the present time.

  GRAND JURY LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. M. BROOKSasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he intends to bring in the Irish Grand Juries Bill before the Easter Holidays?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I had hoped to have been able to introduce the Grand Jury Bill before Easter; but I have just recently ascertained that it would meet the convenience of hon. Members from Ireland, many of whom are leaving London, if I postponed the introduction of the Bill until after Easter.

  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS, &c. (IRELAND) BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. MELDONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the subject of the Amendment of the Law relating to the Registration of Births and Deaths in Ireland has been considered by the Public Departments having charge of such questions; whether the principle of the Bill read a first time in the House of Lords in 1876 has been approved of by such Departments; and, whether the Government intend to introduce any measure on the subject during the present Session; and, if so, when will a Bill be introduced?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, this subject is at present engaging the attention of the Government. Lord Donoughmore's Bill of 1876 has been considered by the Departments concerned, which have approved its main principles; but there are many details connected with the subject which require consideration, and I am therefore unable to say when a Bill will be introduced.

  EDUCATION IN MALTA.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. Keenan's report on the Education Department ill Malta has been received;
  266
  and, if so, if there be any objection to lay it upon the Table?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I have not yet received Mr. Keenan's Report. That gentleman informs me that his duties as Resident Commissioner of National Education in Ireland have recently been exceptionally heavy, and that he has in consequence been obliged to delay the completion of his Report.

  FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS—INCOME AND EXPENDITURE, 1879.

    QUESTION.
    MR. WADDYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the "Account of the Gross Income and Expenditure for the year ending 31st March 1879," presented pursuant to the Act 38 and 39 Vic. c. 45, s. 4, can be presented to the House so soon as to be printed and delivered to honourable Members before the adjournment of the House for the Easter Recess?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, that the Account referred to by the hon. and learned Member could not be delivered before Easter, because the Act allowed the Treasury 15 days after the close of the year to make it up, and it had then to be submitted to the Controller and Auditor General.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CONVICTION OF PETER BRENNAN.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the jury who convicted Peter Brennan of perjury at Drogheda afterwards forwarded a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant asking for a sworn inquiry, and stating that Brennan was convicted wrongly, owing to the informations against him not having been laid before them at the trial; and, if so, whether the Government will grant an inquiry into Brennan's case?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, representation was made to the Lord Lieutenant in this matter. It was referred to the Judge who tried the case, and, acting on his advice, it has been decided that no further steps shall be taken.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—PRISONERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the constabulary authorities demanded the sum of £226 from the Grand Jury of Limerick County at last Spring Assizes for the arrest and conveyance of prisoners in that county; and, if so, if it is true that over fifty pounds of that sum was charged for arresting a man named Ryan, who has never been arrested?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I am informed that a sum of £226 odd was demanded from the Grand Jury, though I have not yet been able to make the local inquiries necessary to enable me to say whether the item of £50 which is mentioned was included in it. Assuming it, however, to be correctly stated, I cannot see that there is anything to be said against its inclusion, as manifestly the cost of measures taken with a view to securing an arrest are equally legitimate whether the result aimed at be eventually attained or not.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—CONVEYANCE OF FEVER AND SMALLPOX PATIENTS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to an article in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 3rd March, complaining of the mode of conveying fever and smallpox patients from the country districts to the workhouse hospital at Baltinglass; and, whether the mode adopted, viz., conveyance on open cars, is not a violation of the provisions of section 140 of "The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878;" and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will give directions to the guardians of the Baltinglass Union to carry out the provisions of that section?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, my attention has been called to this matter, and the practice referred to certainly appears very objectionable. I am glad, however, to find that the Guardians have taken steps for purchasing two vans for the purpose.
  MR. PARNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether horses have been purchased to draw the vans?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: No, Sir, they have not purchased any horses; but I
  268
  understand they have made arrangements for hiring them when required.

  SALMON FISHERIES ACT, 1873.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BLAKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Salmon Fisheries Act, 1873, which first gave power to boards of conservators to frame bye-laws, provides that those who pay licence duties for fishing "common" waters shall have the right to elect a representative member to the fishery board of their district; and, if so, whether he can explain why the licensed fishermen of the "common" fishery of Hoarwithy in the River Wye have never elected a representative to the Wye Fishery Board; and, whether the Home Secretary will take care that these "common" water fishermen shall in future be permitted to exercise and enjoy the right of election conferred upon them by the Legislature?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, this was a peculiar case, and he understood that the right to fish in the Hoarwithy Water was given up on condition that all the salmon caught should be publicly exposed for sale on the highway for the benefit of women who were ill in child-bed. It was doubtful whether the fishermen were entitled to elect a representative, and this could not be settled until a Court of Law had decided whether this place was a fishery in the true sense or not.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSION (IRELAND).—QUESTIONS.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Is it a fact that on the Royal Commission to inquire into the Endowed Schools Act in Ireland there has been no Catholic having a residence in Ireland named as Commissioner; if he would state what are the names of the Commissioners who have been appointed, and how many of them are of the religion of the minority in Ireland; is it a fact that the Secretary appointed to the Commission has been, and still is, one of the Conservative agents for registration purposes in the city of Dublin; and, whether it is usual to appoint a person holding the latter appointment Secretary of a Royal Commission?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, the names of the Commissioners are Lord Rosse, Lord Randolph Churchill, M. P., Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, Mr. Richard O'Shaughnessy, M.P., Mr. William Wilson, M.P., Mr. Andrew Searle Hart, LL.D., Vice-Provost of Trinity College, Mr. Arthur Hill Curtis, LL.D., Professor at Queen's College, Galway. I believe that one of these gentlemen is a member of the Roman Catholic body, the rest being members of the Irish Church or of other Protestant communions. As to the secretary, Mr. Meredith, he is a gentleman who resides in Dublin, and I understand that although he has taken an interest in registration proceedings he has not been professionally engaged in them.
  MR. CALLAN: May I ask, Is it a fact that Mr. Meredith has for the last three years acted continuously and without remuneration in connection with the registration under the Municipal and Parliamentary franchise in Ireland?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, probably he has attended in the manner the hon. Gentleman states; but I understand that his action in the matter has been from love of the cause, and that he has not been engaged in any professional capacity.

  INCOME TAX—BRIGHTON—SCHEDULE D.—QUESTION.
  MR. ASHBURYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can state to the House the number of persons paying Income Tax (Schedule D) in the borough of Brighton, and the number of surcharges of those who made returns, and the amount of such surcharges?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the number of persons assessed under Schedule D of the income tax at Brighton is 3,121. Of these, 1,451 have been surcharged by the Local Commissioners; 1,190 acquiesced in the surcharge, and 261 appealed. On appeal, 93 assessments were confirmed, 132 were partially confirmed, and 36 were wholly discharged. The total amount of the increased assessment made by the Local Commissioners was £207,007, of which £166,329 remained assessed after all appeals had been heard.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. GOSCHEN,
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was not intended to proceed with the East India Loan Bill before Easter, but that the earliest convenient opportunity of doing so after Easter would be taken.

  RELIGIOUS OUTRAGES (IRELAND).

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. JOHN GEORGE MacCARTHYwished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a Question, of which he said he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether it was true that attempts had been made since the present month began to burn a Protestant school in the district of Connemara, county Galway, whereby lives were endangered, and whether a large force of constabulary had been sent to the spot?
    MAJOR NOLANasked the right hon. Gentleman to state at the same time, Whether it was true that a Roman Catholic clergyman had been beaten in the same district?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I am sorry to say it is true that outrages have occurred in Galway which have necessitated the despatch of a considerable body of constabulary to the scene. With regard to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), I regret to say that the name of a clergyman has been mentioned in connection with the matter, and that he is alleged to have taken part in the disturbances. As the subject is under judicial investigation, it would not be proper for me at present to express any opinion upon it.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—THE EASTER RECESS.—QUESTION.
  In reply to Mr. DiLLWYN,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it had originally been intended that the House should rise on Tuesday for the Easter Recess, which he was sorry to say would have to be a very short one. Since then it was thought that the second reading of the Army Discipline Bill might be concluded on Monday, and that the House might have risen on that evening. As, however, it appeared that the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) and the hon.

  271
  Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) intended to raise important questions of foreign policy on the Motion for the adjournment, and as it would be manifestly impossible to get through the debate on the Bill and the debate on their proposals in one night, he feared the Government would be forced to adhere to their original intention of adjourning on Tuesday. It was really of great importance that the House should get through the second reading of the Army Discipline Bill. He would, however, make a positive announcement on the subject to-morrow.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had no intention of raising any question whatever on the Motion of adjournment.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, there was nothing he should regret more than to be responsible for keeping the House sitting, and if any arrangement could be made which would render that course unnecessary, he would be very glad to fall in with it. His sole object in raising the discussion which he proposed to raise was that an advance to Cabul should not be undertaken before the House had an opportunity of discussing the policy of the Government in Afghanistan, and if, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an assurance to that effect to-morrow—["Oh, oh!"]—he thought it was not an unreasonable request—he should have great pleasure in withdrawing his Notice, and then the House might adjourn on Monday.

  TURKEY—CHEFKET PASHA.

    QUESTION.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the appointment of Chefket Pasha to a command at Monastir (see Blue Book, No. 2205, Despatch No. 198), Whether Her Majesty' s Government have made any further remonstrance against his employment at that place in the heart of the country of the Western Bulgarians, and within the limits of West Bulgaria, as defined by Lord Salisbury when at Constantinople?
    MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, that since Chefket Pasha had been removed to Monastir, Her Majesty's Government had heard no complaints against him. Therefore, no further remonstrance had been made by Her Majesty's Govern-
    272
    ment. He wished the hon. Member had quoted the remonstrance made when Chefket Pasha was sent to Salonica, because that remonstrance was couched in the strongest possible manner.

  ARMY—MILITIA OFFICERS APPOINTED TO THE LINE.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Subalterns of Militia appointed to the Line by the Gazette of the 21st February 1879, and subsequent Gazettes, had passed through the "competitive examination on military subjects amongst themselves" enjoined and required by the Special Circular of the 2nd March 1878 (Clause 29, Auxiliary and Reserve Force Circular of 1878), or whether they were appointed by selection; and, if the latter, whether he will explain to the House the principle upon which this selection was made, and the reasons why the regulations contained in the above Circular were departed from?
  COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, none of the subalterns in question passed the competitive military examination, which is a new examination, and additional to all those they had hitherto undergone; but in all other respects they were fully qualified for competition. When the reinforcements for the Cape were placed under orders in February, the necessity for the completion of the establishments was very urgent, and the only candidates immediately available for first appointments for the regiments were the lieutenants of Militia referred to; but they have served the required time in the Militia, and passed the preliminary examination as candidates for the competitive military examination in June next. All Militia candidates so situated have been appointed to the Line, and nearly all of them embarked for the Cape on the shortest notice. It was thought better to select those Militia candidates than to fill the vacancies by appointing young men from Sandhurst who had not yet completed their regular course of military study.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked on what principle the candidates were selected for service at the Cape?
  COLONEL STANLEY: All who were qualified were selected.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—EASTERN ROUMELIA—THE FRENCH COMMISSIONERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAY,who had a Question on the Paper to ask, Whether the joint occupation of Eastern Roumelia has been accepted in principle by the Powers parties to the Treaty of Berlin; if so, by which Powers will the occupation be carried into effect, and by what number and proportion of troops of each Power? said, he would not put that interrogation, as it had already been answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). He would, however, put the following Question, of which he had given private Notice to the Government:—Whether any communications have been addressed to Her Majesty's Government relating to the action on the part of the French Ambassador at Constantinople or the French Commissioners in Eastern Roumelia, opposed to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in that part of Turkey; and whether it is true that one of the French Commissioners had been making a tour of the province in company with a general officer, and that they were received by the populace with cries of "Vive la France;" and whether the course pursued by the French Ambassador has met with the approval of the French Government?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, in reply to the Questions which my hon. Friend has placed on the Paper, I cannot do more than refer him to the answer of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, and that is, that nothing is settled upon either of the subjects mentioned in those Questions. Therefore, it would be impossible for me to make any statement on them at present. With regard to the last Question, I have to say that my hon. Friend has been kind enough to refer me to The Morning Post, which contains a telegram on which the Question is founded. I think the best answer I can give is to state that Her Majesty's Government are in perfect accord with the Government of France on all these points. Therefore, I do not think it would be convenient that I should notice any proceedings or alleged proceedings
  274
  of the French diplomatic agents abroad, so long as we are in accord with the Government of France on the subject.

  AFGHANISTAN—THE WAR—THE 10TH HUSSARS.—QUESTION.
  MR. FORSYTHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received any further information respecting the accident to the 10th Hussars in crossing the Cabul river?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, the telegram which the Viceroy sent has been already published in the newspapers, and all that we have received to-day concerning this unfortunate event is that—
  "Full details not yet received. Nineteen bodies recovered. Lieutenant Harford and 27 men still missing."

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF WILLIAM HABRON, CONVICTED OF MURDER.

    QUESTION.
    MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can inform the House the nature of his recommendation to the Treasury in the case of Habron, and the decision of the Treasury thereon?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Yes, Sir. After consultation with the Treasury, it is the intention of the Government in this particular case to propose a Supplementary Vote to Parliament for the sum of £1,000.

  SOUTH AFRICA—LORD CHELMSFORD.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ONSLOWasked the hon. Member for Dundee, Whether, considering that he has no immediate prospect of being able to bring forward his Motion condemning the policy of Lord Chelmsford in South Africa, he intends leaving the Motion on the Paper till after Easter?
    MR. E. JENKINS: Sir, I must correct the hon. Gentleman in one respect. I do not propose to condemn the policy of Lord Chelmsford. What I propose to do is to condemn the policy of the Government in regard to the command of the troops in South Africa. The Question is very difficult to answer, because I am quite conscious of the very great inconvenience caused by keeping on the Paper a Motion reflecting on the conduct of a General Officer. On the

    275
    other hand, I am animated by the usual anxiety of hon. Members on this side of the House to assist Her Majesty's Government in every possible way; and as the right hon. and, gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said the other evening that he would leave his defence of the conduct of the Government with reference to Lord Chelmsford till the Motion referred to came on, the necessity is imposed upon me of bringing it on whenever I have an opportunity. I can only answer the hon. Member, therefore, by saying that I am not in a position to answer his Question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved—
  "That the Orders of the Day subsequent to Ways and Means he postponed until after the Motion for leave to bring in the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill."
  MR. O'DONNELLsuggested that an opportunity should be given for a discussion of the Land Question as affecting Great Britain and Ireland.
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  WAYS AND MEANS—FINANCIAL STATEMENT.—COMMITTEE.
  WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Raikes, Sir, before I draw the attention of the Committee to the Statement which I have now to lay before them, I hope the House will allow me to take the opportunity of returning my thanks generally to the numerous correspondents who have addressed me within the last few weeks on the subject of increased taxation. I believe I have received letters from about 300 persons, who have made something like 80 different suggestions in regard to the imposition of taxes, ranging from photographs, bicycles, and chimney-pots, down to cats and bachelors; and have taken very great pains to work out their proposals. I regret that
  276
  I have not been able to avail myself of their kind assistance.
  The Statement I have now to make will, I think, be most conveniently opened by a reference to that which I had to make just a year ago—on the 4th of April, 1878. At that time I stated that I anticipated a Revenue, before making any additions to taxation, of £79,460,000, and that I expected an ordinary Expenditure of £81,020,000, showing a deficit on the estimated ordinary Expenditure of the year of £1,560,000. I had also to provide for a sum of £2,750,000 of Exchequer Bonds, which had been issued in the previous year, 1877–8, in order to meet, to a certain extent, a Vote of Credit for £6,000,000 which had been taken in that year. And I had also to state that there were likely to be calls—the amount of which I could not foresee, but which I estimated at from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000—in the course of the year for further Military Expenditure. Accordingly, I proposed to the Committee to impose taxes estimated to increase the Revenue to £83,230,000. That would have left a surplus of £2,210,000 over the ordinary Expenditure, out of which I hoped to be able to pay the unascertained calls, which I had estimated at from £1,000,000 to £1,500,000, and to have a margin available to discharge a portion of the Exchequer Bonds. Well, Sir, with regard to these Estimates, the Estimate of Revenue has turned out, on the whole, not very far from correct. The Revenue, which I had estimated at £83,230,000, has actually reached £83,116,000, or, to be strictly accurate, £83,115,972, leaving a deficit of £114,000 only.
  Of course, there are explanations upon one or two points with which it is not necessary that I should trouble the Committee. Reference has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) to the great quantity of tea recently taken out of bond; and there are, no doubt, exceptional reasons which have led to rather larger receipts in the year than were properly due to it. On the other hand, we had been robbed in the beginning of the year by a scare which took place in 1877–8, in consequence of which a large amount of tea and spirits, and other articles, were taken out of bond; and probably we lost as much in this

  277
  way at the beginning of the year as we have made up in the same way now.
  Well, so much for the Revenue. With regard to the Expenditure, it has exceeded the original Estimate by no less than £4,388,000; so that in place of a surplus of from £750,000 to £1,250,000, which might have been available to pay off Exchequer Bonds, I find myself with a deficiency of nearly £2,292,000. The Revenue has been £83,116,000, and the Expenditure £85,407,000, making a deficit of £2,291,000, and of course, no Exchequer Bonds have been paid off. I would point out, speaking generally, that this excess of Expenditure has been due, first, to larger calls for Extraordinary Services than I expected; and, secondly, to the Vote which has been taken in respect of the Zulu War. The larger calls for Extraordinary Services were brought under the notice of the House in August last, when I made my second Financial Statement. At that time, I explained to the House what the circumstances were which had arisen since the beginning of the financial year; and I then stated that we should require £3,270,000, instead of the £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 which I had originally anticipated. That sum was almost entirely required for extraordinary Services in the East of Europe; but it included a sum of £344,000 for the Transkei War, which had been going on at the Cape. Then, later in the year, I had also to propose a Vote of Credit in respect of the Zulu War of £1,500,000. These two sums of £3,270,000 and £1,500,000, added together, make £4,770,000, over and above what I estimated at the beginning of the year. The Expenditure, however, only really exceeded the Estimate by £4,388,000, because there was a reduction in the actual ordinary Expenditure, as compared with the estimate, of £382,000.
  I will now compare the Revenue which we have actually received in the year 1878–9 with the Estimate formed in the beginning of the year. I compare it, of course, with the Estimate as it stood after the additions which were made to the Income Tax and the Tobacco Duty. The Customs estimate was £20,500,000, the actual Revenue is £20,316,000; and there
  278
  was a loss, therefore, of £184,000. The Excise was estimated at £27,600,000; it produced £27,400,000, being £200,000 less than the Estimate. Stamps, which were estimated at £10,930,000, produced £10,670,000, or £260,000 less than the Estimate. These are the three heads on which there was a great falling-off. I may, perhaps, before going further, mention what the particular items were upon which the disappointments arose. In the Customs we had estimated that the duty on tobacco would produce £8,750,000, whereas it actually produced only £8,492,000. The net receipt in the previous year was £8,000,000. I expected to get by the addition which was made £750,000, but I only got a little short of £500,000; and that, under the circumstances, was not particularly bad. The fall in the consumption of tobacco was something like 3 per cent. It is said by many persons that the fall in the Revenue from tobacco was due, in some measure, to the extra duty which was placed upon it. I altogether doubt that. I do not think that it was. I believe the falling-off in the Revenue from tobacco was due to the same causes which led to the failure in other articles of general consumption; and I think it will be seen that upon several other articles there was a falling-off quite equal to, and greater than, the falling-off in tobacco. I should like to read a short extract from a very interesting communication which I received the other day from a house of business largely connected with the tobacco trade, and which, I think, supplies the answer to the suggestion that the decrease in the consumption of tobacco is due to the new duty. The writers say—
  "That the decrease in the consumption of tobacco does not proceed from this cause can be easily proved. From midsummer, 1874, to the spring of 1876, the cost of American tobacco, with the duty combined, averaged from 4s. to 4s. 4d. per 1b., according to quality, and during this time the consumption steadily increased. From the spring of 1876 to the close of 1877, the combined cost was similar to what it now is, and yet the consumption increased. During the last 12 months, the combined cost of the lowest quality has averaged 3s. 10½d., and of the best quality 4s. 1d. per lb. This shows a difference of 1½d. per lb. on the lowest, and 3d. per lb. on the best quality, in favour of the consumer as against the period of 1874–6, and proves that the theory that the additional duty is the cause of the decrease in consumption is untenable. We doubt not that you will rightly

  279
  ascribe the decreased consumption to the depression of trade throughout the country, but the above facts may be of interest."
  The fact is that the price of the article itself has been so very much lower than usual this year that the additional duty has not raised the price to the consumer. I may take this opportunity of referring to a question which raised some little discussion, especially between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), last year, as to the precise incidence of the duty upon tobacco. My hon. Friend made a most gallant fight upon the subject, and in consequence of the representations which he made, I thought it right to have a very careful examination made into this matter by the Inland Revenue Department. The result is this—The controversy last year turned principally upon three points—namely, the amount of moisture in the leaf, the amount of stalks, and the value of the stalks; and without troubling the Committee with the details of the examination, I may say that the conclusion at which the Board of Inland Revenue arrived, and which I accept, is that the proper duty on cigars ought not to be 5s. 4d., but 5s. 6d. per 1b., and I therefore propose to make that small addition to this duty. I may also mention the fact, as we are on small matters, that there is a little duty of a trifling character upon some new compositions of cocoa—namely, cocoatina, and some others, which will be placed on the same footing as other cocoa preparations.
  Having mentioned what is the case with regard to tobacco, I proceed to state what is the case with regard to wine, which shows by far the most important falling-off in the Customs. The Estimate last year was £1,600,000. The realized amount in the year before had been £1,628,000, and we took it cautiously at £1,600,000; but it only realized £1,475,000. That is, there was a loss of very much more, in proportion to the amount of the Revenue, I believe, than has been sustained on any article of Customs for a considerable time; and it certainly seems to mark—there being no alteration in the duties—an alteration of the consuming power of the class who are consumers of wine.
  With regard to tea, the produce from tea in the year 1877–8 was £4,000,000.
  280
  We estimated last year, partly in consequence of the large amount taken out of bond, and partly for other reasons, a revenue of £3,900,000, or £100,000 less than the produce of the year before. We did, however, receive £4,119,417. But for the "scare," the Estimate would have been pretty accurate. Those are the principal points with regard to which there have been fluctuations in the Customs, one way and another. With regard to the Inland Revenue, there has been a diminution upon the receipts for licences. The licences were estimated at £3,690,000, and they only yielded £3,635,000; and it is observable that the decrease is chiefly in the establishment licences. That, again, is a diminution which tells very much the same story, I am afraid, as the diminution in wine. It shows that those who are in easy circumstances—or comparatively easy circumstances—have found it necessary, in the course of this year, to curtail their enjoyments; and as they have reduced the consumption of wine, so also they have reduced establishments; and they have kept fewer servants, fewer carriages, and so forth.
  I am unable to say at the present moment—some Returns not having been received from the Post Office—what the precise effect of the alteration of the dog licence has been; but I am told that probably there has been very little variation from what was anticipated.
  With regard to the item of malt and sugar used in brewing, there we have an increase. The Estimate was £8,260,000, andtheamountproducedwas£8,390,000; and that is, perhaps, the only item upon which there has been a satisfactory advance.
  With regard to spirits, the estimated yield for the Inland Revenue was £14,900,000; but the yield was only £14,600,000, being £300,000 short of the Estimate. I believe that of that £300,000 decrease £200,000 decrease is due to a diminution of consumption in Scotland, and £100,000 is due to the decrease in Ireland. I believe there has been no alteration, or none to speak of, in the consumption in England. The Railway Duty has increased from £750,000 to £775,000. I think there were some arrears due.
  With regard to Stamps, there has been a falling-off of £260,000, and that is entirely owing to a falling-off in the

  281
  Legacy and Succession Duty. There have been a few variations in other classes of stamps, which just balance each other, and the receipt from Probate is equal to what was estimated; but there is a diminution upon the Legacy and Succession Stamps which is attributable to a combination of causes. In the first place, there have been fewer wills; in the next place, the value of stocks and securities has diminished; and, therefore, the property has been less and the duty smaller. With regard to the curious fact that there have been fewer wills, that is accidental, and apparently it is righting itself; for within the last few weeks, at all events, whatever may be the cause, there has been a considerable addition to the number of wills proved, and the Probate Duty has come up to the full amount which, was estimated. The Legacy Duty, of course, is not collected until some time after the Probate Duty is paid; and, therefore, when you have a good yield of Probate Duty in one year you may expect a large amount of Legacy Duty in the next.
  While I am speaking on this question, I would just take the opportunity of mentioning that my attention has been directed to a matter which is attracting much notice in the country, and which has been mentioned in this House more than once by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and others. It is with regard to the manner in which taxes are collected. Great complaints have been made by persons who have been compelled to take upon themselves the very unpleasant duty of collectors, and sometimes the system has worked harshly. I have prepared a scheme, with the details of which I will not now trouble the House, to alter this, and I hope it will be found satisfactory.
  I have mentioned the items of Revenue upon which there has been a falling-off. I ought now to mention those upon which there has been an excess. For the Land Tax and House Duty the Estimate was £2,030,000, and the actual revenue £2,720,000, showing, therefore, an increase of £90,000. For Property and Income Tax the Estimate was £8,570,000, the actual revenue £8,710,000, therefore showing an excess over the Estimate of £140,000. The Post Office shows an increase above the Esti-
  282
  mate of £40,000; the Telegraph Service, £20,000. Crown Lands are precisely what was estimated. The interests on advances for Local Works, and on purchase money of Suez Canal Shares, was £16,000 more than was expected, and Miscellaneous £223,000. Now, with regard to the Expenditure, perhaps, after what I have said, I need not go in any very great detail into a comparison of the Expenditure of 1878–9, with the grants that were made. There were certain items upon which the expenditure was less than had been anticipated. The interest on Temporary Loans for Local Purposes was £110,000 less than was expected, and the interest on other Consolidated Fund charges was £135,000 less. On the Army, Navy, and other Military Services there were savings; but, of course, they are only savings in detail upon a largo general increase. Upon the Miscellaneous Civil Services there have been decreases, and the result is that the actual Expenditure was, as a whole, £85,407,000, which is £833,000 less than the total Estimate with grants that were made in the course of the year, but is more than the amount originally stilted in the Budget by £4,388,000.
  Now, comparing the Expenditure of the past year with that of the year before, it would be well to distinguish between the ordinary and extraordinary Services, the total Expenditure for 1877–8 was £82,400,000, of which £3,500,000 was on account of the Vote of Credit for extraordinary war Services. The ordinary Expenditure for 1877–8 was £78,900,000. In the year that has just closed, 1878–9, the total Expenditure was £85,400,000, of which there was £4,770,000 for extraordinary war expenditure, so that the ordinary Expenditure was £80,630,000. Thus it will be seen that the increase in the ordinary Expenditure of 1878–9 over the year preceding was about £1,730,000; and that may be accounted for thus:—For different Miscellaneous Civil Service Estimates there was nearly £1,000,000; upon the Revenue Departments about £200,000; upon the Army and Navy about £400,000; and upon the interest on Public Works Loans Accounts, £100,000, making £1,700,000. As regards the extraordinary Expenditure of the year, it exceeds that of the year before by £1,270,000. Now, it will be remem-

  283
  bered that the extraordinary Expenditure was due to two things—one was the Russo-Turkish War expenditure, and the other was the expenditure on account of the war in South Africa. The first was common to the two years, and the second only belonged to the latter. The total amount that was voted for additional extraordinary war Services in 1877–8 was £3,500,000, and in the year 1878–9 it was £3,270,000. of which, however, £340,000 was due, not to the services in Europe, but to the Transkei War in South Africa. Some portion of this was paid out of the Revenue; but there still remain certain outstanding Exchequer Bonds which have been issued in these two years. The amount of these Bonds outstanding is £2,750,000 for 1877–8, and £2,000,000 which were issued in August last for 1878–9. These amount to £4,750,000, showing that there was a balance of £2,020,000 which had been met otherwise—that is, Vote of direct taxation. Besides this expenditure, there was the Zulu War, for which we took a Vote of £1,500,000. I took power, as the Committee will remember, to issue Bonds for that sum; but it was not necessary to issue the full amount of Bonds—in fact, £900,000 was paid out of the Revenue, and only £600,000 was provided for by the issue of Exchequer Bonds. If I could have foreseen that there would have been a large volume of Revenue poured in in the last week, as was the case, perhaps I should have issued even a smaller amount of Bonds than £600,000. I might easily have done with £300,000; but, as it happened, we issued £600,000, so there is a considerable addition to the Exchequer Balances. We begin the year 1879–80 with what I may describe as three sets of Bonds. The first are the Bonds for 1877–8, for £2,750,000; the second, the special bonds issued in August last, for £2,000,000; and the third, bonds of £600,000, which have recently been issued on account of the Zulu War. That makes altogether £5,350,000; but since, in consequence of the unexpected inflow of Revenue, part of the amount raised went to strengthen the balances, the amount really unpaid in respect of these Services is something less than £5,000,000. The Committee will remember that when, in 1877–8, I asked for a Vote of Credit of £6,000,000, I stated that we hoped to pay off that
  284
  amount in three years, being at the rate of about £2,000,000 a-year. We have actually paid £2,020,000, and, besides that, we have actually paid off £900,000 on account of the Zulu War. If the Zulu War had not intervened, we should have paid off something like £3,000,000, or something more, if we had kept down our issue of Bonds to what was strictly necessary.
  It may, perhaps, interest the Committee if I take this opportunity of mentioning how the Account of this Vote of Credit stands. The Vote of Credit for the War in Europe amounted to £6,000,000, of which £3,500,000 were issued from the Exchequer; but the Account, as audited by the Auditor and Comptroller General, allowed only £3,197,000 for warlike preparations, and so forth; so that only that amount was finally charged to that Account. Then, in the following year, we have a Supplementary Estimate, and after deducting the amount which was due to the Grant for the Cape, we find that came to £2,927,000; so that the total charge for the Services on account of the War in the East has been £6,125,000. Now, considering that when we formed the original Estimate we knew nothing of what would take place later, and considering that the events of last year were events of no inconsiderable magnitude, I do not think we came out so badly as calculators, when we find that the expenditure, which we originally estimated at £6,000,000, has turned out to be no more than £6,125,000. Possibly, when the Accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, it may prove less by a small amount. Well, that has been the case in regard to the European complications. With regard to South Africa, hon. Gentlemen must bear in mind, when we speak of the Zulu War, that there was another War—the Kaffir. These are matters which it is far from pleasant for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mention; but it is well that we should understand our position, and we must face it. Well, in 1877–8, the warlike preparations for the Transkei War began—in August, 1877—but they did not involve any very heavy expenditure until about the close of the year. Excluding the pay of the Queen's troops, and the ordinary charges which would have been

  285
  incurred on their account in any case, whether they were at home or abroad, the expenditure amounted to £386,000. I will not go into details, but the total charge to extraordinary expenditure, on account of that war, was £308,000 in one year, and £284,000 in the other, making £592,000. The summary is this—that the preparations in connection with the Russo-Turkish War cost us £6,125,000, the Transkei War, £592,000, and the Zulu, £1,559,000; making £8,225,000 expended in those two years on those three wars, I see that in 1877–8 we raised by loan £2,750,000, and in 1878–9, £2,600,000, making altogether £5,350,000; and deducting this from the total expenditure, it will be seen that there has been defrayed out of the taxes, in that period, £2,900,000 on account of those wars. I think we ought to bear this in mind, because there is an impression abroad that we are going on entirety by borrowing money, and not paying anything out of taxation. I am sorry that our arrangements have been complicated by the wholly unexpected war in Zululand. If we had been spared that, we should be in a position to be able to fully redeem, and more than redeem, the promises that we gave originally that we would pay off the £6,000,000 in three years, iii point of fact, we have paid off one-half, and have prospects of paying off the other half rapidly.
  I come now to the Estimates for the year 1879–80. The Expenditure will be as follows:—The charge for the Debt, and the Consolidated Fund charges, which last year came on the whole to £30,268,000, I estimate this year at £30,620,000. There is an increase of £125,000 upon interest for Local Loans; and there is an increase of £135,000 on other Consolidated Fund charges, and of £90,000 upon Exchequer Bonds. The Army is taken at £15,645,700—that is, £2,000,000 less than last year; the Home charges of Forces in India are taken at £1,100,000; the Navy is put down at £10,586,894, which is £1,375,000 less than last year; the Civil Services are taken at £15,084,851, being £110,000 more than last year; the Customs and Inland Revenue are taken at £2,865,383; the Post Office at £3,368,825; the Telegraph Service at £1,115,195; and the Packet Service at £766,725. This
  286
  gives, therefore, a total estimated Expenditure of £81,153,573. We next come to Revenue, and, first of all, with respect to the Customs. The Estimate for last year was £20,500,000, and the actual payments into the Exchequer were £20,316,000. I take the Estimate for the coming year at £20,000,000, as I think that, under the circumstances of the time, we should not be justified in taking what is called a sanguine Estimate. The Excise we also estimate below the amount actually received last year. It yielded last year £27,400,000, and the Estimate for the next year is £27,270,000—that is, a decrease of £130,000. Stamps we estimate at £10,780,000, being an increase on the amount—£10,670,000—received last year. We make that increased Estimate on account of the prospect of receiving a larger amount of Legacy Duty. The Land Tax and House Duty we take at £2,700,000, or £20,000 less than the yield last year. The Property and Income Tax, which, of course, is swelled by the remanet of the additional sum laid on last year, we estimate at £9,250,000; the Post Office at £6,250,000—that is an advance of £10,000 over the amount actually received last year; the Telegraph Service we estimate to yield £1,310,000, being an advance of £5,000 over the actual payments into the Exchequer last year; Crown Lands, £390,000, instead of £410,000 last year, the decrease of £20,000 being due to the same causes which affected landed property generally, both mining and agricultural. The interest on advances for Local Works and on purchase money of Suez Canal Shares we think will produce £1,175,000, or about £83,000 more than last year, when it produced £1,091,751; and Miscellaneous Revenue, which last year brought in £4,223,000, we take at £3,900,000. The result is that we get an estimated Revenue of £83,055,000, instead of £83,115,972 realized last year—that is, we estimate for a total decrease of Revenue to the amount of about £60,000. Under these circumstances, the Committee will perceive that, taking the Expenditure at £81,153,573 and the Revenue at £83,055,000, we have a surplus of £1,900,000; but this does not include any further provision for the South African War, nor does it include any provision for paying any portion of the Exchequer Bonds.

  287
  There is one matter which I will just mention now, because it would be desirable to notice it, though I do not invite discussion upon it, and that is the question of a loan to India. It has been mentioned to the House that it is in contemplation to propose that a loan not exceeding £2,000,000 should be made to India without interest. There has been some misunderstanding, I think, upon the subject, for I find that some persons have imagined that we are going to lend this amount, and at the end of a definite period of time we are going to ask to have the £2,000,000 handed back again. But this is not the nature of the proposal. The proposal is that the sum shall be advanced for a period of seven years, and be repayable in annual instalments. Therefore, we shall begin to receive, not in 1879–80, but in the next year, 1880–81, instalments at the rate of nearly£300,000 a-year. That arrangement, if adopted by the House, will, of course, in seven years extinguish the loan. Therefore, the only provision that I think it necessary to make is for the interest upon £2,000,000 for half-a-year.
  Now, Sir, it is very difficult to say what may be the calls that may be made upon us for the expenses of the Zulu War. I am afraid that, having consulted with my right hon. Friends at the head of the War Office and of the Admiralty, I am not in a position to give any definite or distinct estimate with regard to it. But, finding that I have a surplus of £1,900,000, I think I may fairly assume that that sum will be quite sufficient to cover any calls likely to be made upon us in respect of that charge in the current year, and also in respect of the sum of £600;000, which remains as debt raised on Exchequer Bonds. But, at all events, if it fails to pay the £600,000, I have every hope that the surplus of £1,900,000 will be sufficient to meet the charge, whatever it may be, that falls upon us in respect of the Zulu War. Then we remain face to face with the Bonds of 1877–8, amounting to £2,750,000, and the Bonds of 1878–9, amounting to £2,000,000, making together a total of £4,750,000, which, according to our original plan, ought to have been discharged at the end of next year, and would have been discharged but for the Zulu War. How are we to deal with these sums which are thus outstanding?
  288
  Obviously, we have the alternatives either of raising a considerable sum by taxation in order to pay off the whole of the Bonds, or one or two sets of them, or we might add the deficits in some shape or other to the permanent Debt; or there is another process—we can throw upon another year a portion of the payment. If we decide upon raising the money by taxation in order to meet this amount, where are we to look for it? There is no doubt whatever of the ability of the country to raise that, or a very much larger sum. The addition of a penny to the Income Tax would give £1,400,000 in the year, and a tax upon some of the leading articles of consumption, such as those the dealers in which have shown such sensitiveness lately, or other items, would readily yield an amount sufficient to pay off the charge, and if we were to do so, we should the next year, or the year after, be in a position to deal with a surplus of some £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 which it might be very popular to have to remit in taxation. That, it must be admitted, is a prospect which would be very captivating under certain circumstances to a Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I must point out to the Committee that this is not a question of popularity or unpopularity, or of anything of that kind; it is a question of what is really most for the true interests of the country. We have to take into account that at the present time our Expenditure is very great, and that it is likely to be so while this war goes on, and that we have, at the same time, a condition of the country which is undoubtedly very far from being satisfactory. I do not join in all the language which I hear used about the great depression of the country. I rather agree with the observations that I have seen made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) that there have been times, not so very long ago, when there was quite as much reason for anxiety as at the present time. But, without drawing comparisons between one period and another, I think it must be admitted that there are plenty of indications that trade is not what it should be, that agriculture is not in a flourishing state, and that the condition of the people—especially, I would observe, the condition of those who are described roughly as the lower middle class, or, it may be, even the

  289
  upper middle class—is one which should make us very careful in putting additional burdens upon them. The indications which I have noticed, the reduction in the establishments, the reduction in the consumption of wine and other matters, all show that the present is not a time in which additional taxation would be borne without distress. But considerable distress does not mean merely a great amount of complaint and grumbling; it means a diminution in the spending power which necessarily affects the trading and agricultural communities and tends to keep down the condition of the country, which we hope to see advance and improve. For my own part, I must say that, unless under a sense of strong necessity and absolute duty, I should look with very great reluctance upon any proposal to make, at the present time, a large addition to the taxation. That is what I have got to say with regard to what I call the "heroic process." Then there is the unheroic process of carrying this sum to the permanent Debt. I cannot conceive anything more mischievous or enervating than that. I think the plan of adding a deficiency of this kind to the permanent Debt of the country would be bad in itself and bad in the example it would set. I prefer the via media. I hold that the true principle of finance is that you ought in ordinary years to maintain a good surplus of Revenue over Expenditure sufficient not only to provide for the Expenditure, but also to leave a margin for the reduction of the National Debt. I hold that you ought to make your taxation as little fluctuating as you possibly can; that you ought not to be in a hurry when you get an accidental surplus to give it away; and that when you nave an accidental deficit you ought not to be in a hurry to put on taxation. I think that frequent fluctuations in our small number of taxes are very much to be deprecated. We must always bear in mind that the finances of this country now depend upon a very small number of sources of Revenue, and that it is not convenient or safe either to give away Revenue or to be continually putting up or down those taxes which we have still in use. The Income Tax was used for many years as a sort of make-weight in the financial system. In a bad year a penny or two was put on the Income Tax, and in a good year a penny or two was
  290
  taken off. But that is not convenient to the country generally, and it becomes more and more inconvenient when you have to bear in mind the principles so justly laid down by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and others—that on an occasion of asking for additional taxation, you ought not to place it on the income tax only, but you ought to accompany it with some call upon indirect taxation. Adding to taxation upon our articles of consumption, if it is only done for a short time—say for a year or two—deranges trade, causes agitation, and a great deal of disturbance without any adequate results. When you see that your Revenue is permanently too low for your permanent Expenditure, then it is comparatively easy to add duties which will have to be kept on, and to which trade will accommodate itself. But when you have to provide only for one or two years, I think that then it will be found inconvenient. Under these circumstances, the inclination of my mind decidedly is that we should do that which is entirely in accordance with the spirit of the proposals we originally made in 1877–8, when the Vote of Credit was first proposed—namely, that we should extend payment of that debt over one year more. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen smile at that, and perhaps they smile with all the greater pleasure because they have two advantages. In the first place, they escape very unpleasant taxation, and, concurrently with that they enjoy the delightful amusement of abusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not at all begrudge thorn the pleasure which they derive from that combination of circumstances. But I have no doubt that it may be in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen that in proposing we should extend this charge over an additional year, I am, in fact, violating the canon which I myself laid down, that we ought not to get into the dangerous practice of adding Expenditure to Debt. They may say that we are making an addition to the Debt of the country. I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the very great difference which exists between taking a sum of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 or £5,000,000, or whatever it may be, and simply adding it to your permanent Debt and so putting it out of sight, and postponing the repayment of Bonds for another year, and so keeping your debt

  291
  before your eyes, until you have satisfied yourselves that you can pay it. If hon. Gentlemen cannot see the distinction between those two principles, I must say I have a very low opinion of their financial skill. Let me ask what would happen, supposing we were to take the course of adding the £5,000,000 to the permanent Debt of the country? We could do so, and could say that the interest on it was to be paid out of the £28,000,000 which we annually apply to the charge of the permanent Funded Debt. The result would be that you would get rid of the sight of these £5,000,000 altogether. You would have nothing more to pay, because our present taxation provides that £28,000,000 a-year, and then you would have a surplus, and might begin to take off taxation, and think of bringing the Income Tax down by another penny. But, according to the principles upon which I proceed, I keep the Income Tax and other duties up to their present rates, for the purpose of getting rid of that charge, in consideration of which it was that the House agreed, two years ago, to raise the rate of Income Tax. I can, of course, understand that these things may be put in various and in very ingenious ways, and we may be told that we are doing something which financially is very discreditable. I have no doubt that we shall have very fine distinctions drawn between what I am doing now and what was done in former times, when Exchequer Bonds were postponed from year to year, and when there was a series of Exchequer Bonds renewed and renewed again for a period of perhaps seven, eight, or nine years. We shall be told, no doubt, that what we are doing now is very bad, and that the expedients to which recourse was had in former times, such as calling up the Income Tax in advance, were very good. I am not at all afraid, however, of meeting discussion upon those topics.
  Before we part with this question, I will ask the Committee to indulge me for a few moments while I review shortly the state of our Debt. Our Funded Debt on the 31st March, 1878, stood at £710,843,008, and the value of the Terminable Annuities running off in stock was computed at £46,335,589, making altogether a total of £757,178,597. In mentioning the calculations of the values of the Annuities, I ought to thank my
  292
  right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) for an interesting criticism he has passed on the mode in which the value of these Annuities is calculated. He has been at the trouble of going carefully into the way in which the calculation is made; and he has ascertained—and we entirely admit the justice of his calculation—that the principle adopted is one which tells very much against the State, and that, in point of fact, the proper value of the Annuities ought not to be taken at £46,000,000, but at a sum of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 less. The valuation is made in accordance with a principle which has been recognized by the National Debt Office for a number of years. It is convenient, and made for the purpose of a comparison year by year; but undoubtedly it does give an incorrect idea of the true value of the Annuities in stock, and I propose to have an inquiry made into it, in order to correct the calculation in accordance with the view of the right hon. Gentleman. That, however, has nothing to do with the comparison that I am now making. The result is that the Funded Debt and the Annuities together amounted to £757,178,597 at the beginning of the last financial year. On the 31st March, 1879, the Funded Debt amounted to £709,402,000, while the Annuities were estimated at £42,776,000, making a total of £752,178,000, or a reduction on the Funded Debt, including Annuities, of just over £5,000,000 in the year. Then the Unfunded Debt of all kinds stood on the 31st March, 1878, at £20,603,000, and on the 31st March, 1879, at £25,870,000, so that the increase of the Unfunded Debt was £5,267,000, or £250,000 greater than the decrease in the Funded Debt. Hon. Gentlemen must bear in mind, however, that of that increase only about one-half was advanced for Supply Services, and that we have advanced to local bodies £2,566,000. Therefore, we have really reduced the Debt, Fundedand Unfunded, by something like £2,500,000. Thus, although we have had a deficiency of Income as compared with the Expenditure of the year amounting to nearly £2,300,000, we must bear in mind that we have reduced the Debt by almost the same amount. Hon. Gentlemen never allow me to exclude from the calculations of additions to Debt the

  293
  amount which is borrowed for Public Works; but it is most unfair and unreasonable if you do not exclude it, because it stands on a wholly different footing. If you are comparing the amount borrowed and applied to Supply Services you are right; but if you compare what you have borrowed and lent again you come into a different field. I do not for a moment deny that the question of borrowing for Public Works is a matter that requires the serious consideration of the House. I desire that it should receive such consideration, and I hope the House will be found willing to support me in giving a fair discussion to the principles of the Bill which I have introduced this year on the subject. I am glad to see that the lion. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) has returned in the nick of time to his place, for he is more critical, perhaps, on this subject than he is upon the Expenditure of the country generally. At all events, I hope that we shall be able to keep this matter distinct from the consideration of our Imperial financial policy. If you are of opinion that the system ought to be altered, then by all means alter it; if you think that it ought to be maintained, do not allow it to make a wrong impression as to the real progress we are making. I wish to point out that if the Bill to which I have just referred should be passed in its present shape it will relieve us for the future, in all probability, from the necessity of borrowing anything more for Public Works at all, because it will put the Commissioners for the National Debt into direct communication with the borrowing bodies—with, of course, the intervention of the Treasury, in order to see that what is done is right. It will put the borrowers into direct communication with the Commissioners, instead of indirect communication through the Exchequer, and we shall thus get rid of a great deal of confusion which results from borrowing on the one hand from the National Debt Commissioners, and lending, on the other, to the municipal authorities. I also wish to point out to hon. Gentlemen that this process of the reduction of the Funded Debt is one which is steadily going on, from year to year, at the rate of 5,000,000 a-year, by the joint operation of the running down of the Terminable Annuities and by the application
  294
  of the Sinking Fund. Therefore, the Committee must not imagine that we are adding materially to the Debt of the country, when we allow for a single year a sum of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000, raised for an exceptional purpose, to stand over. I would call the attention of the Committee to the very great strength which that silent process for the gradual reduction of the Funded Debt lends to our financial system. If there comes a great emergency, you have here a resource to fall back upon which is of the utmost value. You might use it in ways of which it is very easy for anyone to conceive; and I do most earnestly press and entreat the Committee not to adopt any policy which would trench upon that valuable reserve, for any inferior purpose. It is open to two dangers. First, there is the danger of giving way lightly to the temptation of getting rid of taxation and throwing an undue burden on the Debt; and, again, there is the danger of carrying what I call the "heroic policy" too far, and thus producing a re-action which might upset a system which we ourselves believe to be of such service.
  I feel very much indebted to the Committee for the attention it has given me while making these proposals. I make them after a very full and careful examination, and with a full conviction that we are taking a right course. It is not my intention to propose any addition to the taxation of the year. I propose that we should take power at the proper time for renewing the Exchequer Bonds for another year. That will probably take £2,000,000 for next year, and£2,750,000theyear after. The formal Resolutions, which I shall have to place in your hands, Sir, relate to the renewal of the Tea Duty at its present rate, to the small alterations which I have mentioned, in the matter of cigars and of the Crown Duty, and to the renewal of the Income Tax at its present rate.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea shall continue to be levied and charged on and after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, until the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty, on importation into Great Britain or Ireland (that is to say): on

  £

  s.

  d.

  Tea

  the lb.

  0

  0

  6."

  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not rise with the intention of discussing the very important Statement which has been made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is, perhaps, fortunate that he is not in a condition which required him to ask the Committee for an immediate Vote. If it had been part of his financial plan to ask for an increase in taxation, of course the House would, in accordance with its usual practice, have assisted him by at once enabling him to levy additional duties, while reserving its decision on his proposals. That is a practice arising out of a practical necessity; but it must be a matter for congratulation that, on the present occasion, we are under no such necessity. The Resolution read by you, Sir, is laid before the House, and there is no reason we should proceed to discuss it except at such a time as will suit the convenience of the Government and assist the general course of Business. What I desire to do is to remind the Committee that the usual practice of formers years, although it has been materially invaded during very recent years, was to reserve entirely the discussion of the Financial Statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer from the evening on which it was delivered to such another evening as might be appointed for its practical consideration. I believe that that was a very wise and a very convenient practice. Of course, it does not preclude the putting of questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the elucidation of the actual facts and figures of his Statement. For my own part, so far as I was able to follow my right hon. Friend, who was, perhaps, a little rapid in some of the arithmetical portions of his speech, his Statement appeared to me to be exceedingly clear, and there seemed little upon which anyone can desire to make any objection at the present time. It is not in derogation of what seems to me a convenient practice, that every question necessary for a clear understanding of his exposition should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer immediately after the delivery of his Statement. Beyond that, I venture to hope that on this, as on every future occasion, we shall not go, but reserve the discussion of the substance of the Statement itself. Although my right hon. Friend has made no proposal for additional
  296
  taxation, the House will understand that circumstances have led—and, indeed, probably have required—him to go very far beyond the mere mechanical portion of his duty in simply submitting the Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure. In that Estimate the right hon. Gentleman has shown a surplus of £1,900,000; but then he has proceeded to give us his views of the coming charge for the unhappy war in South Africa. Having done that, he has likewise been led—and I am not in the slightest degree blaming him for it—into a discussion of the utmost importance with regard to the policy which this country ought to pursue in dealing with its National Debt; with regard to the mode in which an annual surplus or an annual deficiency ought to be met as it appeared; and with regard to the different policies to be adopted, and a comparison between them. He has also raised another most important question, least of all suitable for discussion at present, with respect to the advances that are now so largely made from the Treasury for the purpose of assisting local communities for various public purposes. There are, in fact, a number of important questions of principle raised in the Financial Statement which, undoubtedly, it will be necessary for this House calmly to consider. For my own part, I would carefully avoid saying a single word on the present occasion that may in any manner prejudice that consideration. All I would say is this—that the consideration of the question of a particular tax that may be proposed this year, and may again be dealt with in another year, is that that is a very trivial matter compared with the principles and rules upon which surpluses and deficiencies are generally to be dealt with, and with the views we take of the great question of the maintenance or reduction of the National Debt as it stands. I desire to reserve, for my own part, a perfectly free discretion with regard to the very important subjects of principle involved in the Financial Statement; and if I may venture respectfully to tender a recommendation to any other Member of the House, it will be that the observance of a similar course will enable us all to approach the discussion of these matters at a more convenient time, and with far greater advantages, and do much fuller

  297
  justice to a matter in which, the interests of the nation are involved.
  MR. THOMSON HANKETwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer some questions with regard to his Statement. There was an apparent discrepancy in what he said with regard to the reduction of the National Debt. Was it not the case that the reduction would be £3,500,000, and not £5,000,000?
  MR. WADDYsought some information with regard to the amount expended under the Vote of Credit in connection with the Russo-Turkish War. The sum of £3,500,000 was put down to the Vote of Credit for the Russo-Turkish War as the actual amount of Exchequer Bonds issued in 1877–8. He believed that the sum actually drawn on that account was only £2,500,000. He should like to know how this difference was accounted for? There was another point in the Revenue Accounts. The Estimate for the Customs for 1878–9 was put down at £20,316,000, and in 1877–8, £19,969,000. He would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in the printed Statement for last year, the Estimate for 1878–9 was not put down at that sum, and he should like to know the reason for the difference?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy) was right in saying that the Vote of Credit expired when only £3,500,000 had been spent; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had explained that in subsequent quarters further Votes had been taken for the same kind of Services, which amounted on the whole to £6,000,000. It was true that the National Debt had only in the present year been reduced by £2,500,000 instead of by £5,000,000, because the increase in the Expenditure must be set off.
  MR. CHILDERS: I will very carefully follow the line indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, and will reserve any criticism to a future occasion. I will now merely ask some questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to the elucidation of certain points, and in order to afford the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making some explanations. I wish, in the first instance, to
  298
  ask a question about the number of years over which the deficit is to be spread. In the Budget speech of April 4 last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the deficit from the previous year, 1877–8, was nearly £2,750,000; and he estimated that, after providing for the extraordinary Expenditure connected with Eastern affairs during 1878–9 he would have a surplus of from £700,000 to £1,200,000 to go in reduction of that deficit, and that the balance would be paid off in this present year, 1879–80. Thus, according to the then Estimate, all the extraordinary charges would be defrayed in the three years, 1877–8, 1878–9, and 1879–80; but now this spreading operation is to extend, not to one, but to two more years, and will not cease till the year 1881–2. I should like to know whether, comparing the two Budget speeches, this is so? Then, with regard to the £1,900,000 surplus, the difference between Revenue expected this year and ordinary Expenditure, the right hon. Gentleman has said that it will cover the whole cost of the South African War during the present year, together with a sum of £600,000 already expended. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman anticipates is that a sum of £1,300,000 shall cover the whole expenditure on account of the Zulu War during the present year. Now, I wish to ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has duly considered that Estimate, seeing that during the last financial year the right hon. Gentleman has taken £1,500,000 on account of that expenditure, exclusive of the Transkei operations, and considering that the most serious part of that expenditure was incurred during the last few months? The Committee ought to know what are the grounds which have led the military and naval authorities to conclude that £1,300,000 will be sufficient to meet that expenditure. It must not be forgotten that, in the event of the war being terminated within a short time, the expense of bringing the troops home will have to be met; and, as everyone who has been connected with the Admiralty knows, that expense is likely to be very heavy, I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give some kind of evidence as to the calculations upon which he has based his Estimate, for, so far as past expe-

  299
  rience goes, he seems to have estimated very much below the mark. There are one or two other matters of detail connected with the Revenue upon which I should also like some information. The receipts of the Customs last year were £20,316,000, and are estimated this year at £20,000,000. But that Estimate implies that the true receipt of the year would be £20,300,000 at least, as £300,000 belonging to the year was received last year. In other words, he anticipates that the Customs Revenue will continue to rise. Is this so? He also omitted to give us any explanation as to the aggregate amount of the special duties collected by the Customs and Excise. Perhaps he will explain to us how it was that the Consolidated Fund charges were so much smaller last year? It is important that we should know the reason for this, for these charges are from £100,000 to £150,000 less than they were in the previous year. There are other questions which I should like to have asked; but it is probably better that we should discuss them at some future time, as suggested by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone).
  COLONEL BARNEsupposed that it was useless at such a period as the present, and "with a Budget like that just presented to them, for him to talk about the remission of the Malt Tax in order to benefit the agricultural interest. But he would venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he might help agriculturists to a certain extent by adding slightly to the tax on sugar used in brewing, and, in that way, increasing the amount of barley used by brewers. Again, without hurting the small consumers, he might double the last year's increased tax on tobacco. Some old salts among his constituents complained that they had to pay a farthing on the ounce more for their tobacco, one-half the farthing going into the pocket of the shopkeeper, and doing no good to the Revenue. By doubling that tax, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might double his revenue, without putting any further pressure on the small consumers.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would like to say a few words as to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals on the extraordinary Expenditure, especially with regard to the unhappy war in
  300
  South Africa. It did seem to him that in taking so small a sum as £1,300,000 for what might be called a great expedition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had hardly taken into account the enormous cost of campaigning in that country, and the enormous charges made by the Colonists. He understood that the very large Estimate of last year was not only spent, but largely exceeded. They were told that the season would be very favourable; but it must be borne in mind that the cost of forage and of transport would be very great, and it did seem to him that these Estimates were too small. Then he observed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had only mentioned the Zulu War in his extraordinary Expenditure, and had taken for his careful expenditure in the matter of the Eastern Question. But was it safe or prudent to assume that they would hear no more of the Eastern Question? The Government might be called upon to take part in the occupation of Roumelia; and considering the way in which we had stood between the people of that Province and their deliverers, he felt that we were bound to do all that lay in our power to secure their safety. Yet that occupation, if it had to be undertaken, would certainly cost us money. As the Eastern Question was not concluded, expense might arise; and it was not prudent, considering the many wars we had in various parts of the world, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put all that aside, and to assume that there would be no expenditure on the Eastern Question, or on the other matters we were engaged in, and the great charge that would be made by the Colonists for assistance given. The Estimate of £1,500,000 made last year would not only be reached, but would be exceeded. We were told that there would be an extreme necessity for an enormous amount of carriage that must be paid for at enormous rates. Therefore, taking the most favourable issue of this campaign, looking at the enormous number of the troops and the large amount of carriage, the Estimate was a great deal too small. He would ask, was the Eastern Question concluded, and would there be no further question in connection with the question, and would the expenses of the Zulu War be so small as was anticipated?
  MR. NEWDEGATEcomplained that it appeared, according to the recent policy of the House of Commons, as if that House, so far as finance was concerned, had determined to wash its hands of all attempts to relieve the distress which was now admitted to be so prevalent throughout the country. He was quite aware that until the Revenue suffered severely, financial arrangements of this kind would not force themselves on the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, at the same time, he could not help feeling that there would certainly be a disposition among the distressed classes, when they heard of the Budget, to feel that they were treated with great negligence. After all, the House of Commons was not a mere taxing machine; but its duty was to represent the great body of the opinion of the country. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was right in understanding that they would not be asked to go into Committee of Ways and Means before the Easter Recess? If that were so, he should be glad to know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could name the day at which they would be called upon to conclude this discussion?
  MR. DODDSregretted very much that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not seen his way to accepting the suggestion he had made to him last year, at any rate, to some extent. He had, however, made a remark upon it to which he should like to allude. He had admitted that the deficiency in the Stamp Duties was attributable altogether to the falling off in the Legacy and Succession Duties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had further told them that the amount of the Probate Duty was almost exactly what he had estimated it at. In this item of stamps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. O'Clery), stated some time ago that the deficiency was about £350,000. Since then, he had reason to believe that it had very considerably increased, and could not now be put at less than between £350,000 and £400,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought this falling off in the Legacy and Succession Duties was partly to be attributed to the smaller number of wills proved during the year, and partly to the diminished value of Stocks, which had to be taken
  302
  into account in assessing the amount to be paid. But, so far as the number of wills was concerned, he would remind the Committee that, inasmuch as the Probate Duty was about the same that it was estimated to realize, this result could not have been in any way affected by a decrease in the number of wills. Another circumstance to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not referred, and to which he believed was attributable the greater part of the falling off, was the alteration made in the regulations for collecting the Legacy and Succession Duties, from the 1st of April in last year. Very little notice was given of the change, and he first heard of it after it had come into operation. Consequently, there was not time for Gentlemen in the same position as himself to express an opinion on the subject until it was too late. For his part, he believed that to that change alone might be attributed the greater part, if not the whole, of the falling off in the Legacy and Succession Duties. It had certainly caused a considerable amount of inconvenience. Before 1878, all these duties outside the Metropolitan district were payable through the distributors of stamps, and that was found to be a very convenient course. Without any notice, the whole of these regulations were altered, and the amounts now had to be paid direct to the Receiver General. He wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could tell the Committee the relative amounts received for these duties within and beyond the Metropolitan districts? That information was not given in the Returns; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer could very easily get it, and if he was rightly informed, it would be found that in the Metropolitan districts where there had been no change, there had been no falling off in the duty—or, at the most, only a very slight falling off—in the extra-Metropolitan districts it had fallen off by 40 or 50 per cent. If he was rightly informed, that showed that it was not expedient to make any change, and he would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the old state of things should be restored. He saw, by the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, that they thought the new system would be convenient to solicitors, executors, and administrators living in the country, because it enabled them to

  303
  bring their business directly to a conclusion. His experience was directly opposed to that opinion. He should like to allude also to the question of discounts. In his opinion, it would be found advantageous to allow a greater discount on Legacy and Succession Duties than 4 per cent. The advantage would be similar to that which accrued to the Exchequer when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) made the assessed taxes payable on the 1st of January. There were other topics in the Budget to which he would like to allude; but for the present he would confine himself to these two topics. He hoped, however, to have another opportunity of bringing the Probate and Legacy Duties under the consideration of the House.
  MR. ONSLOWwould not follow hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite through their criticisms, but would merely say that he thought this was a Budget which would be appreciated by the country. There was one particular item, however, as to which he did desire some information. There was a falling off in the item of "Miscellaneous Revenue." Now, the Committee were aware that a great part of this Miscellaneous Revenue came from India, and as there was a considerable diminution in the item, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them whether this was owing to the receipts from India being less than in former years, and, if so, for what reason?
  MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, he knew it was useless to speak of the Income Tax that year; but now that it must be regarded as a permanent tax he did hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer would keep his attention turned to the subject, and endeavour to remedy some of the unnecessary injustice attending its assessment and collection. There was especially a grievance connected with that tax to which he had once or twice drawn attention. People were compelled, against their will, to collect the Income Tax. The regulation produced a great deal of friction, irritation and discontent; and as he knew, from personal inquiry, that the Government Departments were ready to undertake the collection of the tax, he did not see why they should not.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked on what principle the Estimate of the Income Tax was made for the coming
  304
  year? Last year it produced £140,000 more than the Estimate, which was a very remarkable fact in face of all that they had heard about the depression in trade. As, however, incomes were estimated on the three years' average, the full effect of that depression might only now be felt.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, with regard to the Estimate of the Income Tax, a greater advance would have been anticipated, but for the depression of trade. A very considerable allowance had been made for that depression. The increase on Schedules A and B also, which might be expected from a new assessment, had only been taken at half its usual amount; and, unless there was a recurrence of the great commercial disasters of the past, he felt certain that this Estimate might be relied on as correct, and it was an Estimate which he submitted with considerable confidence, as not likely to prove excessive or too sanguine. As to the grievance to which the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) had called his attention, he was afraid the hon. Member did not catch what he said about the collection of the Income Tax, for he had already announced that, after Easter, he should, be prepared to propose certain alterations in the collection of the tax. He was also asked by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) what were the causes of the diminution in the Estimate of the "Miscellaneous Revenue." It would be remembered that it comprised a very large number of various small items; but with regard to the Indian charges, the hon. Member might relieve his mind, for there was no material alteration there. The receipts in the year 1878–9 from the Indian Revenue amounted to£1,180,000, and, for the coming year, they were estimated at about £1,100,000. The difference was not very important, and he might add that last year they received £214,000 from the Post Office Savings Bank on account of the arrears of postage which had not been charged to that branch. Then they had also sold a site to the Post Office Savings Bank for £70,000. The hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) had adverted to and condemned the change in the mode of collection of the Legacy and Succession Duties, and had referred to that as one explanation of the decrease in the

  305
  receipts of the past year. It was a curious fact that, during the last six or seven weeks of the year, the number of wills proved in the Metropolitan district had exceeded by at least 40 or 50 the number in the corresponding week of the previous year. The Probate Duty was paid first, and then the Legacy Duty, so that the year 1879–80 would probably be a good year for Legacy Duty. Probably there was a certain amount of dissatisfaction at the change that had been made, and he would inquire into the reason for it. He was not able to give the figures as to the Metropolitan district, and those outside; but probably the hon. Gentleman was correct in speaking of the districts outside the Metropolis. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had asked him over what years it was proposed to spread the repayment of the £6,000,000. In reply, he could only say that when he proposed that loan on his Budget for 1878, he proposed to spread the repayment over the three years next following, beginning with 1878–9. That was his original idea; but when he brought forward the Budget last year, he had hoped that affairs would be settled quickly; that the whole of the £6,000,000 would not be required; and therefore he had said that he really thought the matter would be cleared off in the present year. That hope had, however, not been fulfilled, owing to the course events had taken, and he did not now expect that the final repayment would be made till the year after next. With regard to the question which had been put as to the cost of sending the troops to Zululand, and whether the sum of £1,900,000 would suffice for the Zulu War, a very large proportion of that expense had been already paid out of the £1,500,000 granted last year. Although considerable expense had, no doubt, been incurred, it was not the case that the whole of those troops would have to be brought back; because at the time of their being sent a certain proportion of them were on their way to India under the usual orders. Then there were also certain repayments due to the Government from the Colonial authorities, which of course they would get; and though he would not venture to give an Estimate, yet he hoped they would not be inconsiderable. Under all the circumstances of the case, although
  306
  he had not ventured to submit an Estimate, matters would, he hoped, turn out as he had anticipated. His right hon. Friend asked how the Customs' Estimate had been taken, and said that the whole Customs revenue last year was £20,300,000, of which £300,000 belonged to the present year. That was not quite an accurate statement, because though, in one sense, the year had been robbed of £300,000, yet they had been robbed the year before of £100,000, on tea, and, he thought, £200,000 or £300,000 on spirits, so that they lost more in the beginning than they gained in the end of the year. With regard to the Customs' Duties on spirits, they bad exactly come up to the Estimate, though there had been a falling-off of £300,000 on the Excise. Very careful Estimates had been made for the coming year, and a considerable reduction had been taken in tea, which last year produced £4,120,000. The Estimate for the current year was £3,890,000, and if they had made £100,000 one year and lost £300,000 another, £200,000 expressed the difference. He repeated that he thought the Estimate for Customs had been made very carefully, and he did not consider it by any means a sanguine Estimate. He had now had the opportunity of watching these Estimates for two or three years past, and was, therefore, able to speak with some knowledge of the subject. In reply to the question as to the Consolidated Fund charges, referred to by his right hon. Friend, he might say that last year that Fund was affected by the difference between what was estimated for miscellaneous purposes, and the actual expenditure; the Estimate being £287,900, and the actual expenditure being only £171,000. The explanation was, that it had been thought that it would, be necessary to pay a sum of £153,000 for the interest and commission on the Ottoman Guaranteed Loan of 1855 for one year, in consequence of a belief that that payment would not be made by the Ottoman Government. As a matter of fact, a portion of it—the greater portion—was paid; but still some £60,000 was left unpaid, and was provided out of that amount, the result being that the expenditure had been less than the Estimate by £115,000. He need hardly discuss the question of the Malt Tax, and with regard to the Sugar

  307
  Duties, he believed they were fairly assessed, regard being had to the quantity of saccharine matter, and that the amount was an equitable one. It was a matter, however, which they desired to keep before them. As to tobacco, he did not think there had been a great falling off in the consumption in consequence of the duty; but he did fear there had been considerable moistening of the tobacco, which tended to injure the tobacco, and the Revenue too. In conclusion, he hoped that in view of the holidays the Committee would agree to adjourn the further discussion of the Budget to that day three weeks, that being a convenient day, he thought, for all to postpone it to.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Monday fortnight would not be a better day. As it was, with the Holidays intervening, the time was rather long between the discussion that night and the important debate which must take place on the Budget upon another occasion. He wished it to be clearly understood that there had been no discussion that evening; not that they thought that discussion unimportant, but because it was so very important it was held to be better to adjourn it until another more favourable occasion. Therefore, he trusted no one would misintrepret this abstention from discussion on this occasion. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had said that this Budget would be appreciated by the country. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would have preserved a better neutrality, and conveyed better sense, if he had said that this Budget would be seen through by the country, and he ventured to suggest that that was what he meant by appreciation.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the amount spent on the Universities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, £601,000. He said the Government appreciated Monday for their own Business, and he should prefer Thursday for the resumption of this debate.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that last Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to answer a Question on the subject of the contribution to the expenses of the war by the Cape Government. He thought, before the Budget was finally settled, they should ascertain how much the cost of the war would be.
  308
  The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Briggs) had said that a certain sum had been raised; but they could hardly consider actual expenditure until the House knew something of the contribution it might fairly expect from the Cape. There was another point, more in the shape of an intimation than anything else, with reference to the question of the Afghan War expenses. When the Vote was taken, it was understood that the Indian Revenue should be charged with those expenses, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not mean by that the Indian Revenue would be saddled with the whole of the charges. The question of the ultimate proportion of expense to both Governments seemed to him to have been left rather an open one. As that war had assumed a very different complexion to that which was anticipated when it was first undertaken, he thought it would be valuable for them to have full information on the subject before finally determining the Budget.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not prepared at that moment to give information as to the final arrangements with the Cape as to their share of the expense of the war. Correspondence was still proceeding on the subject. As to the second question he thought a more suitable occasion for discussing it would be in connection with the Indian Budget.
  Resolution agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the following Duties of Customs shall he charged on and after the 4th day of April 1879, on Cocoa or Chocolate, ground, prepared, or in any way manufactured, imported into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in lieu of the Duties now payable on Paste or Chocolate (that is to say):—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Cocoa or Chocolate, ground, prepared, or in any way manufactured the lb.

  0

  0

  2"

  Resolution agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the following Duties of Customs shall be charged on and after the 4th day of April 1879, on Tobacco Manufactured, viz. Segars imported into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in lieu of the Duties now payable thereon (that is to say):—

  Tobacco Manufactured, viz.:—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Segars the lb.

  0

  5

  6"

  MR DODSONsuggested that, as there was an alteration with regard to the duty on cigars, it would be well to defer taking that Vote.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the House knew very well that where there was an increase of duty that was not the Vote to stop. If they deferred the Vote, all the cigars would be taken out of bond to avoid the duty.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must express his acknowledgments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in having yielded to his argument which be advanced last year, and given him what he then asked. He felt so strongly on the subject that he then ventured to press the matter upon the House. He felt that an injustice was being done to a large body of cigar makers in this country to so great an extent that he would be justified in trying to bring the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reason; and he was very glad to find that he had now come to a better frame of mind. He only regretted that his unfortunate clients, the cigar manufacturers, had been mulcted 2d. a-pound more than should have been demanded of them; but he did not suppose there was any use in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refund the money. He personally felt in a very awkward position as being responsible for the only increase of taxation this year. He was glad to acknowledge that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having been convinced that he had been in the wrong, had given all the reparation in his power.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was extremely glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had his attention drawn to the way in which tobacco was adulterated at the present time. He was informed that tobacco was frequently adulterated not only 8 per cent, but as much as 50 per cent, the result being that the poor working man not only got a very inferior article, but also had to put up with the loss of 10 or 12 of his matches before be could get a light. Various matters were introduced into tobacco to assist the absorption of water. A general Order bad been granted, making no objection to the use of acetic acid in the manufacture of tobacco. This acid was sometimes pure; but in the manufacture of cheap tobacco the quality of the acetic acid was frequently deleterious, and the quantity of water
  310
  absorbed made the tobacco really prejudicial to the health as well as to the pocket of the consumer. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would extend his care to the tobacco consumers, to protect them from infusions of deleterious matter and the adulteration of tobacco by water.
  Resolution agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER),in rising to move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Code of Indictable Offences and the Procedure relating thereto, said: Towards the middle of last Session I bad the honour, on the part of the Government, to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill entitled the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill. On that occasion I entered upon a long and elaborate explanation of the principles upon which the measure was founded and the objects which the Government desired to accomplish by its means. I have a very lively recollection of the circumstances under which that measure was introduced to the House, and I am bound to add also of the fairness of discussion and attention accorded by all who listened to the explanation which I had to give, an explanation necessarily full of technicalities, and I was going to say necessarily somewhat tedious. The House did give me very great attention, and after having heard the statement which I made, consented to the first reading of the Bill, and, as far as I could gather, certainly gave a general approval to the measure. The Bill was accordingly printed and was presented to hon. Members for their consideration; it was circulated through the country, and I am happy to say that in a very short time afterwards, both hon. Members in this House and numbers of other persons living in the country who were conversant with the subject, and thoroughly

    311
    able to form a just opinion upon it, appreciated the efforts that had been made by the framers of the Bill, and, in fact, received the measure with high approval; and not only was it received with approval by the House and country generally, but the Press took up the subject, and I believe I am stating accurately what occurred when I say that it was unanimous in approving the determination which the Government had exhibited, of codifying, and of codifying effectually, an important branch of the law. Now, Sir, the prospects of the Bill which I obtained leave to introduce last Session were at first undoubtedly bright, and not only was it well received, but there seemed to be a concurrence of opinion among hon. Members that whenever the measure came on for discussion, or partial discussion, as it did on some occasions, that every facility ought to be given for passing this measure into law. Unfortunately, however, although the prospects of the Bill were such as I have described them, soon after it was introduced, and as time went on, the interest in it became somewhat thin. This was owing to the complication of foreign affairs, and other causes which I will not now dwell upon, and it was due to these that the remainder of the Session was occupied with affairs of perhaps greater importance than any piece of domestic legislation, and it very soon became apparent, although the Government were desirous, earnestly desirous, no doubt, of giving every facility in their power for the advancement of the measure through the House and facilitating its becoming the law of the land, that they were nevertheless unable to afford the facilities requisite. Accordingly, it was resolved by Government that before the Session came to an end the measure should be abandoned, with the view of re-introducing it as early as possible during the present Session. But the Government considered this Bill as an extremely important measure. It was regarded as—and it was, in fact, so far as I am aware—the first and only serious attempt ever made in this country towards codifying any portion of the law; and because it contained not only a codification or consolidation of a considerable portion of the Criminal Law of the country, but also enacted several radical alterations therein, it
    312
    was thought advisable to utilize the interval between the end of the last Session and the beginning of the present by submitting the Bill to a most thorough and exhaustive examination and review. It was also thought advisable that the opportunity should be seized of extending its provisions to Ireland, and thus assimilating and bringing into harmony and concord, to a great extent, the Criminal Law of the two countries. Now, for the purpose of accomplishing these ends, the Government resolved upon appointing a Commission. Accordingly, towards the close of last Session, Commissioners were appointed to examine and revise the Code, as well as to suggest any alterations which they might think proper to be made therein. Their powers were, in fact, necessarily exceedingly large and ample. The Commissioners appointed were, I think all will agree, men of the greatest eminence and experience, and thoroughly competent for the task imposed upon them, weighty though it was. As the House is aware, Lord Blackburn, who is a tower of strength wherever he may sit, whether as a member of a Tribunal or a Commission, was—or rather I should say is, for the Commission is still sitting—the Chairman of the Commission; and the other members were Mr. Justice Barry, one of the most eminent of the Judges of Ireland, and who, I understand, is a Judge of great experience in the treatment of Criminal Law. Then there was Mr. Justice Lush, who will be allowed by all those who understand the administration of justice in England to be a man of the greatest ability and of the greatest experience; and, finally, Sir James Stephen—now Mr. Justice Stephen—the drafter of the Bill, whom I think everybody will admit to be a man who has signalized himself by his earnest and constant endeavours to simplify and improve the law. Such were the Commissioners appointed. I believe when it was under consideration who should be appointed as members of the Commission, a good many hon. and learned Gentlemen in this House thought it was desirable that the Lord Chief Justice of England should be a member and the head of the Commission; no doubt, if it could have been arranged that he should have been present upon the Commission, a man so able, and so illustrious a jurist

    313
    as the Lord Chief Justice of England, his presence would have given great weight to any suggestions which the Commission might think proper to make. But, unfortunately, the necessities of the case demanded that when the Commission was formed its sittings should be continuous. The Commissioners were not to be interrupted in their labours, and the arrangement and understanding was that the Commission should sit de die in diem. It was, therefore, seen to be impossible that the work of the Courts of Justice at Westminster could have been properly proceeded with if the head of those Courts were to be withdrawn altogether during several months from the multifarious and important duties which devolve upon him in connection therewith. For this reason, the Lord Chief Justice was not placed upon the Commission, and for this reason only. But although the necessities of the case rendered it impossible to place the Lord Chief Justice upon that Commission, I have no doubt that hon. Members will confess that the Commission is one in which I am entitled to ask that the House should place every confidence. The Commissioners commenced their labours in November last, and they have been engaged upon those labours continuously and sedulously ever since. I shall not presume for a single moment to endeavour to describe the labours of those learned Commissioners; for, if I were to make the attempt, I am sure I should fail to convey to the House any adequate idea of them. It is enough to say that I am perfectly convinced, and can assure the House, that not only has every chapter and section, nay every line, of the Criminal Code of last Session been subjected to the most thorough and searching examination, and, so to speak, manipulated with extreme care and patience, but that a great number of alterations have been introduced. I believe when the measure, which I shall ask permission of the House to introduce in the shape in which it has left the hands of the Commissioners, is compared with the Bill of last year, it will be found that those alterations are very considerable. I will describe them in as few words as I can command. They consist in the main of a very considerable amplification of the statement of the law with regard to certain matters, especially the law relating to the justi-
    314
    fications and excuses for acts which would if committed without such justifications or excuses be criminal. There is also a considerable alteration in the arrangement of the subjects dealt with; and then, again, it must be noticed that there have been excisions from the Bill of certain obsolete and antiquated Statutes which perhaps it has never been necessary to enforce, or that really do not require to be enforced—for instance, the Act relating to the observance of Sunday, and that which makes it illegal to hold a meeting within a certain distance of the Houses of Parliament. There has also been the excision of some Statute Law which, although not obsolete, the Commissioners have, for very good reasons, thought fit not to include in the Code. And, again, there has been a substitution for that part of the Code which relates to procedure for carrying out objects intended to be attained by clauses introduced into the original Bill, which are now sought to be attained more fully and in a somewhat different manner. The Commissioners have also introduced certain improvements in the law altogether novel in themselves, not contained in the original Bill, in which there have been made very considerable alterations both in the drafting and phraseology. When I mention the general character of these alterations, I feel that I am bound, in justice to Sir James Stephen, who drafted the original Bill, to say that, on the whole, the principles upon which it was founded remain undisturbed, and that the lines upon which it was drawn have been, on the whole, pursued. But, Sir, the Commissioners have not quite finished their task, because, as I understand, the Schedule of the Statutes which, in their opinion, ought to be repealed, either wholly or in part, is not yet complete. It requires to be finally settled; and, moreover, the Commissioners have not yet agreed upon their Report. The Schedule will, nevertheless, soon be perfected, and I have no doubt that the Report will also be agreed upon very shortly. I look forward to the latter with great anxiety, and immediately it is received, it will be presented to the House. But the draft of the Bill is substantially complete, and that being so, I do not see why there should be any delay in presenting a statement with respect to it to the notice of the House.

    315
    It is desirable that I should do so before the Easter Recess, in order not only that hon. Members may have an opportunity of considering the Bill, which I am confident will be in their hands before that period, but that people throughout the country may also be able to consider the measure, which is one of very great importance, and which will be recognized as effecting long desired amendments in the law of the land. Now, the Bill may be called a Code of Crimes and Procedure in Criminal Cases. Some of its provisions refer to crimes of all kinds, not merely to indictable offences; but, in the main, they are confined to those crimes for the commission of which the alleged perpetrators are punishable on indictment. This will be explained more fully when I have the opportunity of going further into the matter than I am able to do this evening; but I may mention that the Bill does not include summary offences, for the very simple reason that if you were to make it applicable both to indictable and summary offences, you would produce a measure of such magnitude as it would be hopeless to attempt to pass into law. The Bill, as it now stands, may, perhaps, in the opinion of some hon. Members, be considered very formidable. I will explain, as succinctly as I can, the nature of the provisions contained in the Code; but before entering upon those explanations, I will, if the House will allow me, make some remarks upon the subject of codification generally. Now, as I understand the term, a Code is nothing more or less than a legislative declaration of the law, and the whole of the law relating to any particular subject, which declaration is made by an enactment or enactments expressed in precise and perfectly accurate language. The law which is thus declared may, of course, be derived from a variety of sources; it may be derived from Acts of Parliament, decided cases, the records of ancient customs, or from text-books of authority. When, however, it has been drawn by the Legislature from its various sources, and has been declared in such enactments as I have described, this declaration is to be accepted as correct, and it is not admissible in any way to question its accuracy; all doubts are, of course, removed, all controversies are set at rest, and the Code is made a fresh point of departure,
    316
    and a fresh source of law, beyond which, or behind which, it is not permitted to go in order to carry out further investigation. I know there are some of my hon. and learned Friends who say, and no doubt they profess what they believe, that they cannot understand the advantage of a Code. They say—"We do not see the utility of codification; the existing law is settled, and those who are initiated know what it is;" or, what amounts to the same thing, that "they know where to find it." And then they argue that to put the law in the shape of a Code is merely to undertake a useless labour, and is something very like making a copy of a document, instead of referring to the document itself. To these arguments I reply, in the first place, that the law on any given subject is not always settled. It often happens that there are conflicting interpretations and opposing decisions; and although it may be that a mind sufficiently educated, astute, and experienced can select the most trustworthy interpretations and pick out the most trustworthy decisions, nevertheless, the process is one which is both long and tedious, and involves very frequently an enormous expenditure of research and labour. And then, again, although it may be considered that the initiated may know the law, or the sources at which it may be found, it must, I think, be admitted that they are but a very small minority in the community, and that it is certainly most undesirable that, with regard to the law—under which everybody lies, and by which everybody is bound—the general body of the public should be excluded from any reasonable use of the means for obtaining access thereto. Moreover, even the initiated are not acquainted with all the law, and much of it they can only ascertain by the study of Acts of Parliament, text-books, and reports of cases in which it, so to speak; lies hid—a process that will occupy infinitely more time than the simple reference to a Code. Surely, it is a desirable thing that anybody who may want to know the law on a particular subject should be able to turn to a chapter of the Code, and there find the law he is in search of explained in a few intelligible and well-constructed sentences; nor would he have to enter upon a long examination of Russell on Crimes, or Archbold, and other text-books, because he would have a succinct and clear state-

    317
    ment before him. The advantage of this clear and natural statement of the law, expressed in a few words, has never been stated bettor than by Sir James Stephen in a recently-published book, which he calls a Digest of the Criminal Law. The Bill which I am about to introduce contains a statement of the existing law relating to crime, or rather the main or great bulk of the Code consists of a statement of the existing law relating to crime. Some portions of the Bill, as I have already mentioned, declared the law with respect to matters which are applicable to all crimes punishable upon indictment or by summary proceedings. I take for example these sections which refer to the parties by whom crimes may be committed, and those which refer to the justifications and excuses for acts which would otherwise be criminal; but there are other portions of the Bill applicable pimply to indictable offences for reasons which have been already given. It would be a mistake if the House were to come to a conclusion that the Bill included every indictable offence to be found in the Statute Law; but it does include in its pages all the indictable offences which are ordinarily considered as crimes. Now, stated shortly—In the first place, the Bill contains provisions as to the application of the measure; second, an enumeration of the punishments which may be imposed, and some minute provisions with regard to them, designed to make those punishments consistent, and, if I may say so, harmonious in themselves, and to prevent the possibility of the infliction of sentences of undue severity. Then, again, in the third place, there is a very elaborate and careful enunciation of various matters which are dealt with under this head; and I think it will be found, upon examination of this portion of the Bill, that the Commissioners have expended infinite time and labour to make the subject of excuses and justification as complete as possible. Then, fourthly, there is a statement of circumstances in which persons become parties to the commission of crimes and the relative degrees of culpability which attach to those persons who themselves commit crimes, or incite others to their commission. There are, in the fifth place also, definitions given of various offences of the nature of ordinary crimes, made perfectly clear
    318
    and as consistent as possible. The Bill also contains, in the sixth place, a very succinct statement of the procedure which must be adopted for the purpose of bringing offenders to trial, the mode in which the trial should be conducted, and of certain steps to be taken after trial and before sentence has been carried into effect. These are the heads of the Code. But I may be asked why it does not include all indictable offences known to the law? I should myself desire that all such offences should be included; but the reason given by the Commissioners for not making the Code to include every indictable offence known to the law is that there are a great many offences dealt with by carefully-considered Statutes passed in recent times, which constitute practically Codes in themselves, and that there are also Statutes relating to other offences, of an antiquated and obsolete character inapplicable to the present times, such as those to which I have already referred—laws which, perhaps, it would not be wise to repeal, but which it would certainly not be politic to re-enact. Although the Code does not contain an exposition of the law relating to every indictable offence to be found in the Statute Books, it certainly contains, to my mind, this very salutary provision. Many people speak of the elasticity and flexibility of the law; but I think that our object should be to ascertain what is the Criminal Law, and not to stretch it for the time being in order to include an offence. There has been inserted in the Code a provision that everyone who is a party to an indictable offence shall be proceeded against under some provision of the Bill, or some Statute not inconsistent therewith, and shall not be proceeded against at Common Law. It is thus secured that every crime shall be distinctly and clearly described, and not be the subject of doctrines which ingenuity may render sufficiently flexible to suit the occasion. But the Bill does something more than codify the law; it alters it in several material particulars. I am not going to trouble the House by repeating at length the description given by me with considerable elaboration last Session, and which I believe was a perfectly accurate one, of those various alterations; but will content myself by saying as shortly as possible in what they consist. These altera-

    319
    tions consist—First, in the placing of the law relating to punishments on a more satisfactory footing; in doing away with minimum punishments, and, in some instances, diminishing their variety and preventing the possibility of their being unduly severe. For example, it is well known that the punishment of two years' imprisonment with hard labour is one of the greatest possible severity, so much so that if a person should be sentenced to this term for one crime, and again on its expiring sentenced to undergo it for the commission of another, he would not be able to endure it unless there were some provisions for its relaxation. Then, again, the distinction between felony and misdemeanour is abolished, and amendments are introduced in the law which are rendered necessary by this abolition. Now, a difference of opinion may arise upon this subject, although I do not think it will, for surely you can get rid of a distinction which is not necessary. Why the false pretence by which a man gets £1,000 out of another and so defrauds him of his property to that extent should be called a misdemeanour, and the act of stealing a mutton chop should be called a felony, it is difficult to understand. Then there are alterations in the law under the head of homicide, and also with regard to murders intended, to secure that a man should only be convicted of murder when he has intended to take away life, or was utterly careless whether the consequences of his act resulted in taking away life or not. Let a man be convicted of this terrible crime of murder, for which he is subjected to the most awful punishment that man can lay down, if he intended to take away life, and not otherwise. But under the head of homicide, also, there are provisions with regard to provocation, by acts of insult, which reduce an act that would originally come within the category of murder to the crime of manslaughter. I will not attempt to go through these provisions; but I believe it will be found that they place the law in a much more intelligible and satisfactory basis than the present. Then there is a provision which remedies the defects existing in our law with regard to infanticide. At present, if a child is killed before it is completely born into the world, although it is a morally guilty act, it is not held to be murder; a provision has, therefore, been
    320
    introduced, to make that act punishable as a capital offence. It has also been made penal for a woman on the point of being delivered of a child to abstain from procuring assistance, a provision that I think will do away with the necessity of that portion of the law which relates to the concealment of birth, under which many persons are convicted of the minor offence and escape conviction for a crime of much greater magnitude. Then the old doctrines of the law with reference to theft and offences cognate thereto have been swept away and replaced by principles of a plain and intelligible sort, and consonant with the habits and feelings of the age in which we live. I mean that it is declared that a man shall be guilty of a crime if he steals any property, no matter what sort. There are a variety of old doctrines on this subject which have been doubtless rendered difficult and mysterious by Statutes passed for the purpose of making various sorts of property subjects of larceny, and it is better that these should be swept away. Further improvements have been effected in the law relating to forgery and the fabrication of false documents, with regard to which I think an unwarrantable distinction has prevailed. This is to be removed, and the result will be that it is no longer declared to be a crime punishable with penal servitude for life that a man should forge a receipt for a few shillings, whereas the fabrication of a document in which thousands of pounds are concerned, and which may entail most serious loss, should only subject the offenders to fine and imprisonment. We now come to that part of the Bill relating to procedure; and, undoubtedly, a great deal of the old law on this subject has been re-enacted; but it has been freed altogether from its entanglement, subtle technicalities, and confusing requirements. In the first place, the abolition of the distinction between felony and misdemeanour undoubtedly requires a considerable change to be made in the execution of warrants for the arrest of prisoners, the bailing of challenges, and the joining of charges in indictments, and the House will find that these necessary changes have been introduced. Further, the difficulties arising under the present law from the doctrine of venue, by which a man having committed an offence in county A might

    321
    escape punishment by being brought up for trial in county B, are entirely removed. A provision has also been inserted, enabling the Court in suitable cases to direct that proceedings on trial by indictment shall be taken after the model of the proceedings in civil cases. Then the Bill extends the provisions of the Vexatious Indictment Act substantially to all cases whatsoever, so that no man shall be indicted unless he has been in the first instance taken before a magistrate, and except on condition that the prosecutor should incur the risk of being compelled to pay the costs of the proceedings in case he fails in his application. A change has also been made by which a person may make an admission on trial; for instance, concerning letters produced in criminal causes. The old law required that somebody should be called to prove the handwriting which everybody may know, but none will admit, to be that of a certain person. Again, there are many alterations in detail of considerable importance, introduced with the view of making the administration of justice simpler and more effective; and, in illustration of this, I will refer to the abolition of the necessity for backing warrants, and the giving of power to magistrates to take evidence upon oath in cases where it is clear that a crime has been committed, although no one is specifically accused. It is also enacted that, in future, no one shall be tried upon a coroner's inquisition, but that the effect of a coroner's warrant shall be to send suspected persons for further examination before a magistrate. Into this portion of the Bill has also been introduced a very important alteration in the law, and one which will probably give rise to discussion—that is, the alteration which authorizes the examination of prisoners; but, at the same time, it may be stated that there are enactments also introduced which will act as safeguards and prevent the possibility of any unfair advantage being taken of this power. On this subject my own mind is almost evenly balanced. I can understand that were this power possessed many more persons would be convicted, because there can be no means of arriving at the truth so safely and so surely as that of the examination of the accused, or, rather, no means of exhibiting his guilt so surely. On the other hand, it might
    322
    operate hardly in the case of a man unjustly accused of a crime, but whose antecedents were of that character which would unfairly prejudice his case if they were exhibited to the jury. I shall be glad if the discussion on this portion of the measure should be both full and ample; and I beg to assure hon. Members that if the House should exhibit a feeling adverse to the introduction of such a principle, I shall at once consent to its withdrawal. The simplification of proceedings in error also forms an important alteration of the law. A Court of Appeal is established for criminal cases, and there is a provision which gives a right of appeal in certain cases from that Court to the House of Lords. A provision has also been inserted in the Bill enabling a prisoner convicted of an offence to obtain a new trial if it should appear that the verdict was not satisfactory, or if fresh evidence has been adduced. This provision has been loudly called for, and I trust that it will be thoroughly and cordially approved by the House; for I could never understand why a person in a civil action, involving perhaps the sum of £35, should have the opportunity of showing that the verdict of the jury is erroneous, and that the like opportunity should be denied to a prisoner convicted and, perhaps, sentenced to lose his life. Several improvements in minor matters have also been made which may now be passed over without remark; but I think I ought to dwell upon one, which may be considered as important—namely, the simplification of the pleading in criminal cases. Any hon. Member who has had experience in these cases will know that the pleadings are very often preposterous, the offence being set out in an indictment, the meaning of which it is almost impossible to understand, and which conveys to the unhappy prisoner, who has not the faintest idea of what it is all about, no information whatever. With the object, therefore, of removing this difficulty, the provision I have mentioned has been introduced, so that an indictment against a prisoner, instead of being long, perplexing, intricate, and technical to the highest degree, and, I may add, on the whole, almost unintelligible to the ordinary lay mind, will, in future, be perfectly plain and easily comprehended. This result will, I am sure, be regarded as a great boon

    323
    by magistrates and solicitors, and, in snort, by all who have to do with the administration of justice in criminal cases, and will not fail to lead to a considerable reduction of cost in these proceedings. Before concluding, I desire to say a word or two with regard to the prospect of carrying this measure into law. Now, the Government are very anxious that this should be effected. They consider the Bill to be an extremely important one, and that the demand for a thorough simplification of our law cannot be any longer resisted. There has been a cry for codification in the country, but, of course, you cannot codify the law all at once; it is a matter that will occupy considerable time, and which must be the result of very great labour. The Government also regard the Bill as one which, if passed into law, will effect a large measure of necessary legal reform and amendment. They are, however, fully aware that the Bill is a voluminous one, containing provisions on a great variety of subjects, and which it will be impossible to pass without the cordial co-operation of the House. The difficulties in the Bill must be grappled with firmly and fairly, without any desire to avoid discussion. The Government will be most ready to consider any proposal made by any considerable body of the Members of this House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) seems to have an idea that the device of dealing with this matter piecemeal might be adopted. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a speech on the subject the other night, which, I must confess, filled me with dismay. He said that it would be impossible for the House to forego the careful consideration of the measure, and that the only way of dealing with it will be to take it in sections. Sir, what is the meaning of that suggestion? I presume that if my hon. and learned Friend's plan were resorted to this Session, the portion of the Bill relating to excuses and justifications would be considered; next Session the House might direct its attention to the law relating to treasons; the Session after that to offences against property; the Session after that to the proposed amendment in the Law of Homicide, and so on. The consequence of such a proceeding would be—if everything went on as prosperously as could possibly be hoped, perhaps the
    324
    Criminal Code might, in the course of 15 or 20 years, be enacted into law. Sir, when I contemplate having to wait for the accomplishment of an object which I earnestly desire to encompass for that period, I own I grow very sick at heart. I cannot think that resort to this dilatory process is necessary. There are, no doubt, changes in the law proposed in this Bill of an important character, which the House cannot fairly be called upon to sanction without careful consideration and discussion; but I do not see that it is impossible to discuss them all within the remainder of the present Session. With regard to the rest of the measure—that is to say, by far the greater portion of it—it contains simply a consolidation and codification of the existing law upon certain subjects; and I must own that it appears to me that such consolidation and codification can never be properly accomplished unless the House will be content to confide the preparation of the Bill to persons who are known to be thoroughly competent, and to accept the result of their labours. I thank the House for the attention accorded to the statement which I have had to make, and have only, in conclusion, to move for leave to bring in the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Code of Indictable Offences, and the Procedure relating thereto."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. LAWconcurred with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General as to the importance and magnitude of the measure he was about to introduce. Unquestionably, it would make great changes in the Criminal Law, one of the most important of which would be the reduction of a portion of the unwritten law into statutory law—a matter of extreme difficulty and nicety. Notwithstanding the confidence they all had in the great ability and skill of the distinguished persons to whom the revision of the Bill had been intrusted, they could not, he feared, relieve themselves from the responsibility of carefully examining its provisions. He would suggest that the second reading should be postponed for at least as long as Bills of the first magnitude generally had been, and that they should be furnished with the Report of the Commissioners. The

    325
    hon. and learned Attorney General was mistaken as to what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), who, he was sure, had no desire that the consideration of the Bill should be confined to one small portion during each of several Sessions. There was, on the part of hon. Members at his (Mr. Law's) side of the House, no desire for such needless delay; and he hoped the Attorney General would succeed in carrying through the House a measure which was calculated to effect so desirable an object as the simplifying and codifying of the entire Criminal Law of the United Kingdom.
    MR. WADDYsaid, he feared that the Bill had been already introduced too late in the Session. He regretted that the promoters of the Bill had wandered away from their original intention. It was understood, when the Bill was first proposed, that it would be a Bill which would codify existing law, and not one which would introduce radical changes into the very substance of the law. No one could have listened to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General without being convinced that the Bill was not a codification, but a revolution, of the existing law. If it had been a codifying and consolidating Bill merely, he would have been willing to take a great deal of its contents for granted; but the measure being a revolutionizing one, hon. Members could not abdicate their functions and neglect their duty, which would compel them to go clause by clause through the Bill, and examine its minutest details. The measure, he contended, must be dealt with on the "sectional principle." Moreover, the Bill was most incomplete. He could not approve the proposal of the Attorney General to leave out of the Code a great many laws because they were already contained in Acts of Parliament; nor did he think it right that some laws should be omitted because his hon. and learned Friend did not think it desirable to re-enact them. In some respects the existing law was changed in the Bill which it was sought to introduce. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to eon-template a change in the laws with regard to the observance of Sunday; but if any vital change were actually to be made in those laws, such an amount of
    326
    contention would be caused in the country and the House as it would be almost impossible to allay. The Attorney General ought to give them a good digest of the proposed alterations in the Criminal Code, so that they might fully consider what were the vital changes recommended. So far as the measure was one of consolidation and codification, the House would be prepared at once to deal with it; but such changes as that which he (Mr. Waddy) had indicated, if introduced by the Bill, would create a widespread fooling of dissatisfaction, and the Attorney General might rely upon it that a very long time would be necessary before any conclusion could be arrived at respecting the merits of his measure.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that the statement of the Attorney General, that the Bill was an improvement on the Bill of last Session, justified the opposition which he and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) gave to that measure, on the ground that it was an imperfect one. They had no means of knowing whether this Bill was or was not obnoxious to the same objection. Many of the alterations proposed to be made by it were of a revolutionary nature, and would entirely change the spirit of the Criminal Law of the country. The Bill of last year was altogether a doctrinaire measure, and proposed to introduce into the Criminal Code of this country the principles of the Criminal Law of France and other countries. It proposed to change the most important and characteristic principles of our law by the proposal to make prisoners competent witnesses. It was one of the liberties gained at the Revolution of 1688, that the prisoner should have every chance—that he should be considered innocent until found guilty, instead of forcing a confession upon him. If a Bill of simple consolidation were introduced, the House could consider it; but alterations in the law, such as the proposal to allow a prisoner to give evidence in his own case, and to apply for a new trial, ought not to be approved without full discussion—in fact, they ought to be brought before the House in distinct Bills. He would suggest that the Attorney General should be a little less ambitious in his scheme, and that he should be content to

    327
    introduce a measure consolidating the existing laws. To request the House to adopt the proposed changes in the Criminal Code on the faith of three or four gentlemen, however eminent they might be, was equivalent to asking the House to abandon its position as representing and legislating for the country.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he was disposed, without pledging himself to its details, with which he was now imperfectly acquainted, to give the Bill his best support. The spirit in which the measure had been brought forward did the Attorney General great credit. There were two courses open to the Government—the one was to introduce a mere consolidation of the existing law, and the other to introduce a Bill not only consolidating, but making improvements in that law. The latter was the bolder, and, he thought, also the right course. He had the honour of being the Member of a Commission to inquire into the propriety of a Digest or Code of other branches of the Law, and the conclusion to which that Body came, after great study of the subject was, that if a digest of the law were made exactly as the law stood—that was, a mere consolidation—it would be worth nothing. The case was the same, in many respects, with the Criminal Law. Our Criminal was superior to our Civil Law, being much simpler; nevertheless, there were many things in it which must be altered; and if our Criminal Law were consolidated just as it was, the work would be of very little value. It was said to be a great obstacle to the passing of the Bill that it did away with the distinction between felony and misdemeanour; but, in his opinion, no consolidation of our Criminal Law would be satisfactory without the abolition of that distinction. That distinction arose entirely under the feudal principle. Felony was a term of feudal law which imported the forfeiture of property by the vassal to the lord, and misdemeanour was not dependent on feudal law. There were many misdemeanours which were far more serious offences than felony, and the distinction between the two could not be maintained. That great jurist, Savigny, said that the evil of a Code was that it fixed the law as it was and prevented its improvement. That was a very serious objection to all Codes. If they made a Code when the
    328
    law was imperfect, all the existing imperfections and absurdities of the law were stereotyped and crystallized. In no country but ours was an accused person denied the privilege of giving evidence in his own behalf, his evidence being taken for what it was worth. That was a matter which must be dealt with in any consolidation of our Criminal Law. It might be urged that a measure both reforming and consolidating the law could not be passed this Session. But they could not reasonably expect the whole Criminal Law of England, which had grown up from a very remote period, to be consolidated and made into a corpus juris and passed through both Houses of Parliament in one Session. He thought there would be no difficulty in getting a continuous Act in such special circumstances, providing that next Session they might take up the Criminal Code Bill just at the point it had reached at the close of the previous Session. If in that way they could, in two or three years, pass a complete system embodying the whole Criminal Law of this country, they need not grudge the time spent over the work. He would suggest that the Attorney General should include in his Bill one more improvement of the law—namely, a Statutory Limitation for Criminal Offences. Such a provision existed in all countries except this. There was much the same reason for a statutory limitation in regard to criminal as in civil cases; and it was, perhaps, more important in the former than in the latter. Under the Church Discipline Act, no proceedings could be taken against a clergyman except within a certain time. He had himself drawn that Act for the late Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Phillpotts, and he remembered preparing a clause containing such a limitation in order that a clergyman might not have a charge kept hanging over his head all his life. Many men had been indicted 20 or 30 years after the date of the offences charged against them, and in some instances they had been executed for them. An innocent man's memory might have failed him, or a material witness for his defence might have died or gone away; and it was very hard that such a man should be liable to have an indictment, perhaps for murder, brought against him at any moment for an indefinite period. Such a charge might even be preferred to extort money, and

    329
    the accuser might have waited long for an unfair advantage. In passing a Statute of Limitations in criminal matters, we should only be following the example of every civilized country, and we should thereby effect a great improvement in our law.
    MR. COLEthought that the Bill would in many particulars be a most valuable one; but doubted whether, as it stood at present, it would be possible to pass it during the present Session. If, however, the matters which involved important alterations in the existing law were struck out of the Bill, in order that they might be embodied in separate Bills, the present measure would have a good chance of passing, because hon. and learned Members near him would do their best to assist the Attorney General in getting it through during the present Session. He advocated the reduction of the maximum term of imprisonment, which was now two years, and was much too severe, to 18 months, and the restoration of the power of giving three years' penal servitude, which he regretted had ever been abolished. He also thought that there should be a power of giving five years' penal servitude in cases where a former conviction was proved; at present, nothing less than seven years could be given. He also felt the necessity for the simplification of indictments, which, under the existing system, in complicated cases sometimes extended to the length of the House. The question of appeal was extremely important; but then there was this difficulty—that if they gave the prisoner the right of appeal, they must give it also to the other side—the Crown; and the question altogether was so large and difficult, that he thought it would have been bettor not to have introduced it into the present measure, but to have dealt with it by a separate Bill; the same observation would apply to the provisions for new trials. As to the examination of prisoners, he thought this alteration would have been better left out, as it must cause great discussion. In his view, the practice would prove exceedingly dangerous; it would eventuate in a system of torture, because a man put on his trial was not likely to have full possession of his nerve. If the prisoner were examined, he would have to be cross-examined; and if he had ever previously been implicated in a case
    330
    even of mere suspicion, this would come out and damage him, and he would not have a fair trial. Parts of the Bill were very valuable indeed, and he could see no reason why they should not be passed this Session. He was quite sure that with reference to these portions the Government would receive the assistance of that side of the House. He hoped, however, that the second reading of the Bill would not be taken for six weeks, so as to enable hon. and learned Members who were obliged to go on Circuit to have time to consider its provisions.
    MR. GRANTHAMobserved, that if the measure were to be discussed in the spirit that had been exhibited by hon. and learned Members opposite, it would be hopeless to expect that it could over pass. It was idle to talk of consolidating our Criminal Law without at the same time endeavouring to improve it. The object was to sweep away all the anomalies which existed in the Criminal Law. Many of the alterations in the Bill were, no doubt, important; but the Judicature Act had introduced far greater alterations, and yet had passed the House in a single Session. It was much better that the alterations should be introduced into the Code and form part of a whole, than that each change should be embodied in a separate Bill. None of the alterations were of such a nature as to require a prolonged discussion; and, at any rate, that was not the proper time to discuss the various alterations, nor to express their opinions upon them. He hoped an effort would be made to deal with the Code as a whole, and that they would not cut out the alterations which were its most important part, and leave them to be dealt with piecemeal. He desired to see the Bill passed this Session, and practically, at all events, in its entirety.
    MR. HOPWOOD,while earnestly desiring that some such Code as this should pass, thought there were many difficulties in the way. He regretted that the Commission to which it had been referred had consisted exclusively of Judges, and had not contained an admixture of the civilian element. Lawyers, like other professional men, were greatly benefited by the criticism of the outside world, and it would be undesirable to take the Bill merely upon the authority of the eminent Judges through whose hands it had passed. At the same time, he de-

    331
    sired to assist as much as possible in the passing of the measure.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, as it was necessary to act upon the principle that ignorance of the law excused no one, they were bound to make the law as simple and intelligible as possible to all. The questions they had to consider were these—whether a codification of the law would be satisfactory without some alteration and amendment, and, if so, how they were to get the measure passed through the House? As to the desirability of the alterations with respect to felony and misdemeanour and the mode of procedure, there was a general concurrence of opinion; but there were others which might lead to mere controversy, but which it was, nevertheless, essential to raise in so general and comprehensive a measure as the present. Discussion on the alterations proposed was right and proper; the question was how, without preventing the discussion, they were to get the Bill passed through the House. It was unfortunate that a Bill for consolidating large branches of the law should, like other Bills, end with each Session of Parliament. Some years ago a Parliamentary Committee, of which he was a Member, had this question under consideration. They recommended that Bills consolidating the law, such as the present one, if they failed, to pass in one Session, should be taken up in the next at the stage at which they had arrived. This might be done by means of a Resolution of both Houses; and if ever there was an occasion for the exercise of the discretion of Parliament in that matter, it would be found in dealing with the Bill now before it.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONwas glad that the measure was in no sense of a Party character, in spite of the very manageable majority of the Government. From his side of the House there was, he believed, no intention to oppose the Bill in a factious manner. The progress of the Bill was probably not assisted by any desultory discussions of its provisions before the House knew exactly what was proposed. A Bill of that kind might be opposed by minute and endless criticism of its details; but no measure could pass if it were so treated, and the result would be either that the House would have to abandon its great work of codification and consolidation, or that it would be obliged to take many of the provisions
    332
    of the Bill upon trust. They knew that they must make some sacrifices if the Bill were passed. Codification, in its proper sense, was new to their legislation. They had an immense body of consolidated law and of statute law; but he did not know of any Act of Parliament which might properly be called a Code in its technical sense. At present they all knew that the public at large left the law very much to the discretion of the Judge; and so the House, without discussing seriatim all the provisions of the Bill, might take upon trust the principles on which it was based. It had been urged that those who were to be punished by the law ought to have an opportunity of knowing the law as well as the Judges who administered it; and as the law was made known, so the more easily could it be made known. If there was an amendment in the law, some authority would have to be appealed to. He knew not what that authority might be; but some day or other the House would have to do what all Legislative Bodies had done when making laws, to trust to authorities for explanation and for declaration what the laws should be for any practical result to be obtained. Whether they had yet arrived at that period they were scarcely in a position to discuss; but they would be in a better position when the Bill was before them. He thought they could easily facilitate the progress of the Bill by at once allowing the hon. and learned Gentleman to bring in his Bill as soon as possible, and by his naming a day for its second reading at an early date.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that he would give his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) all the assistance he could in order to pass the Bill; but he could not relinquish his duty as a Member of the House to exercise his judgment upon it. He was astonished at the argument of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Grantham) that, because the Bill would contain existing laws which had, therefore, in past times received the sanction of Parliament, those laws should be passed as a matter of course. One of the objects of the Code was to amend and alter many of the laws; and even if that were not so, the House, before re-enacting them, ought to consider in how far they ought to be altered or amended. To re-enact them would be to give a new sanction to them,

    333
    and that ought not to be done as a matter of course. Again, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) had said that, as the public accepted the interpretation of the law by the Judges, the House ought to accept the recommendations of the Commissioners. He (Mr. Serjeant Simon) was astonished at such an argument. The public accepted, and were bound to accept, the interpretation of the law by the Judges, because the Judges were the Constitutional expositors of the law. The Commissioners had no such character or authority. Parliament was the only Legislative Authority known to the Constitution, and it could not abdicate its functions without a violation of its duty. It was responsible to the country for the laws it passed, and it could not throw off that responsibility; and he, for one, was not prepared to sanction such a course. No doubt the opinions and the recommendations of the eminent men who sat under the Commission were entitled to the greatest consideration, and they would receive it from the House; but even the recommendations of a Select Committee appointed by that House, which the Commissioners were not, were not always adopted by the House, and he certainly did not feel bound implicitly to adopt the recommendations of the Commissioners. Some of those recommendations involved important changes in the law as well as in procedure. Some of those changes had been referred to in the course of the debate. The law relating to Sunday trading, for instance, would give rise to considerable discussion if it was proposed to re-enact it as it stood at present, and to omit it altogether from the Code, as it seemed to be intended, was open to grave objection. The Code would not be a complete Code, and would not fulfil the character and object of a Code, if it omitted any portion of the Criminal Law. Again, the admission of prisoners as witnesses in their own cases would be a most important alteration in our Criminal Procedure. The subject was introduced last Session by the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), and the discussion of it occupied a whole morning. It could not be expected that such a change, if proposed by the Code, could be accepted simply because it was recommended by the Commis-
    334
    sioners. Then, again, with regard to the abolition of the distinction between felony and misdemeanour, whilst he admitted that the distinction, so far as related to its feudal origin, had lost its significance, and that as it now existed it was absurd, he did not approve of placing all criminal offences in one category, and calling a common assault and a murder by the one common designation of "indictable offences." He thought that offences should be classified, either by bringing the graver and more heinous kind under the head of felony, and the lesser under that of misdemeanour, or by ranging them according to their degrees of gravity. Here, however, he must express the hope that the Bill would not contain the subtle and scholastic distinctions which were in the Bill of last year, many of them showing more the character of the Sciolist than the Legislator, and more suited to the Professor's Chair than the practical administration of justice. With regard to codification, he must say that there was a great deal of idle talk upon the subject, just as if a Code would necessarily be a fixed, unalterable body of laws, and that it must necessarily be simple and easy to be understood. They could not have such a thing. Every Code, like every law that was passed, would require interpretation, and must of necessity expand in time, and receive accretions from the growth of judicial decisions. Pass the code to-morrow, and they would soon have commentaries upon it, and reports and digests of the decisions to which the ever-changing circumstances of life would give rise. Still, however, it was an important thing that our laws should be classified and arranged, as far as possible, in symmetrical form; and he could only repeat that, whilst he should feel it his duty to exercise an independent judgment upon the Bill about to be introduced, he should give all possible consideration to the recommendations of the Commissioners, who had accomplished a great public work, and all the help he could to his hon. and learned Friend in passing the Bill.
    MR. WHITWELLhoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would proceed with this measure, notwithstanding all he had heard to discourage him from hon. and learned Members. The hon. and learned Gentleman must expect that every clause in his Bill would be

    335
    subject to discussion; but he (Mr. Whitwell) trusted it would pass more smoothly than the reception the Bill had met with would lead them to suppose.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, it was not his intention to now enter upon any lengthened discussion of the principles or provisions of the Bill proposed to be introduced. The House, of course, was compelled to judge the character and probable effect of the measure from the statement of the Attorney General. In his judgment, he was glad to say a disposition had been shown to mate a wise and salutary advance. Very many of the provisions would, no doubt, operate most beneficially in the administration of justice. But he desired to guard himself against it being assumed that he, as a Member of that House, was bound to accept and approve any provision, merely because it had received the sanction of the very eminent and able Judges who had sat as Commissioners. He feared, though he had the highest possible respect for the Irish Judge selected to serve on the Commission, and considered no Judge on the Irish Bench had higher qualifications or was better suited for the post than Mr. Justice Barry, that some omissions had been made in the proposed repeal of Irish Acts, which would still leave Ireland subject to an exceptional and more severe Code of Criminal Law than England. He thought it right to remind the Attorney General that in Ireland, in dark and evil days, a Code of extraordinary severity was enacted, and they had Insurrectionary Acts, White boy Acts, and a number of other similar oppressive Acts. He trusted, therefore, when this Bill was being further proceeded with, the Attorney General would see that all these Acts were repealed, and let them start with a measure of Criminal Administration for Ireland the same as they had for England. With regard to the proposed examination of prisoners, he thought that, so far from its being for their benefit, it would militate strongly against innocent persons. Many persons found it very difficult to recollect facts with clearness and accuracy. If prisoners were to be rendered liable to examination, he thought it would be better to have resort to the Code in France. At present the prisoner might practically make a statement if he pleased; but to enact that the privilege
    336
    of tendering himself for examination should be given, would, if he did not do so, militate strongly against him, because, of course, the prosecuting counsel would invariably comment on the fact if the prisoner did not make a statement. At present, a prisoner had full opportunity to make any statement he wished, through the medium of his counsel; therefore, the proposal in this Bill would require a full and searching examination before they committed themselves to the principle. Personally, he was opposed to the proposed change, and he hoped a majority of the House would be found to be of the same opinion. One matter, however, he must congratulate Her Majesty's Government on—that was, that they had had the courage to propose that there should be an appeal in criminal cases. This was a great step in advance, and he congratulated the Government upon what they had proposed in this respect.
    MR. PARNELLwished to add his voice to the chorus of admiration with which this Bill had been received, though his feelings were very much damped, because he felt there was a very great probability that the Bill would never be passed. He did not charge the Government with having wasted the time of the House in introducing the Bill this evening, because it was, no doubt, desirable that the House and the country should have an opportunity of studying the details of a Bill of this character. At the same time, in looking to the future, he felt a sort of despair as to the capability of the House of Commons to deal properly and suitably with a Bill involving such enormous and important questions—questions of varied interests and various people. No doubt many of the provisions of the Bill were exceedingly good, and they ought not to be viewed in any sense from a Party point of view; and all sides of the House should endeavour, if they possibly could without the sacrifice of principle, to aid the passing of the Bill. There was one proposal which he would take as an example of the benefits of the Bill if it passed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General announced that he proposed to do away with the offence of constructive murder. In Ireland they had been looking for such a change for a long time. They had had many instances in

    337
    Ireland where men had been found guilty of constructive murder in order to punish them for other offences. Ten or 12 years ago they had a remarkable instance of this. In 1867 a number of young men in Manchester banded together to rescue two Fenian leaders. These young men were admittedly banded together for an unlawful purpose, and they attacked a prison van, and a shot was fired, which killed Sergeant Brett. It was not proved at the trial that this shot was fired by any of the prisoners; yet, notwithstanding this, five young men were found guilty, and sentenced to be executed. It fortunately turned out before the day of execution, one prisoner, Maguire, was able to prove a most conclusive alibi. The sentence on another prisoner, Condon, was commuted to penal servitude for life, though, thanks to the clemency of the Government, he had since been set at liberty. Three young men, however, were executed for the firing of this single shot. Now, had this been in existence as it was at present proposed, none of these young men would have been sentenced to death, and they would have received a punishment commensurate with any illegal act of which they might otherwise have been guilty. He did not agree with much that had been said on the subject of the examination of prisoners. It seemed to him that the liberty proposed to be given to a prisoner under trial of submitting himself to examination would tell most against those who were guilty, and least against those who were innocent; because, if a prisoner knew he was guilty, in nine cases out of 10 he would hesitate to submit himself to the examination of a clever cross-examining counsel; whereas the man who believed himself to be innocent would have the courage which innocence nearly always gave. Therefore, he was inclined to think that, guarding the matter as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General proposed to guard it, they might, on the whole, fairly adopt some modification of the hon. and learned Gentleman's plan, so as to allow prisoners an opportunity of proving their innocence in the only way in which very often it could be proved—by themselves. With respect to the appeal in criminal cases, it was a matter of the greatest importance. It had always appeared to him to be a relic
    338
    of barbarity that they should never have allowed an appeal in criminal cases. The case of the young man Habron, sentenced to death a few years ago, but who had recently received Her Majesty's gracious pardon, was an example of the enormous value that would be derived from a full and free appeal in criminal cases. He would undoubtedly have been able to establish his innocence if he could have brought his case before a Superior Court of Criminal Appeal. He hoped that the gloomy anticipations that had been indulged in as to the possibility of passing the Bill into law might not be fulfilled; but he very much feared that, under present circumstances, and as Parliament was at present constituted, the prospects of the measure were not of the brightest possible character.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, this was a subject in which he had always taken the greatest possible interest; but, unless the Bill were treated with considerable judgment, there would be very great difficulty in passing it at all. The Bill consisted of a great number of clauses, the vast proportion of which were a mere codification of the existing law. But then there were some momentous changes proposed, which the House could not abdicate its functions by accepting on trust from a Commission composed of men, no matter how experienced and able. Of course, those recommendations were entitled to the greatest respect; but he would remind hon. Members that if the changes did not turn out beneficially, the responsibility would rest with the House; and, therefore, it was incumbent upon the House to give those changes the greatest possible consideration. The only practical way to deal with the subject seemed to be this—so far as the Bill was declaratory, to avoid discussion, accepting those clauses on the authority of the Commission who had so laboriously considered them; but, when it was proposed to alter and amend the law, to debate the clauses and form their own opinion upon them, giving only due weight to the high position and great learning of those who recommended them. He made this suggestion in no hostility to the measure, for no one could more earnestly desire than himself that the Code should pass into law. Even if it turned out to be not possible to pass the

    339
    Code this Session, advantage would be derived from having had the Bill under the notice of the House and before the public. He, therefore, respectfully urged his hon. and learned Friend, on the second reading, clearly to indicate those parts of the measure which were new, and to keep them separate from what was merely declaratory.
    MR. BULWERexpressed his concurrence in much that had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend. He hoped the Bill would pass during the present Session. Indeed, if it were treated in the spirit which had characterized the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend, he saw no difficulty about it. So far as the Commission on the Bill had exercised a legislative, as distinct from a judicial capacity, the House ought to be jealous of giving its consent to any change they proposed. For instance, to admit the evidence of prisoners would be to recur to an old practice which had been abandoned because of its abuse. At present if, on his examination before the magistrates, a prisoner made a statement of facts which the prosecution did not inquire into before the trial, and were not prepared to contradict that statement, it would be accepted as true, and he would have the benefit of it; but as no prisoner who was really guilty would, if he knew that he was to be examined at the trial, be foolish enough to make any statement before the magistrates, if on the trial he made a statement of new facts the truth of which could not be tested immediately, was the trial to be adjourned in order that inquiry might be made? And if not adjourned the prisoner might possibly get the benefit of a false statement being accepted by the jury as true. They were already merciful enough to prisoners, and in their anxiety for the innocent were apt to allow many who were guilty to escape. The right of appeal in matters of law already existed, and it was not desirable to give an appeal upon matters of fact, which were thoroughly sifted at the trial. While the House ought to be jealous of its jurisdiction respecting alterations of the law, it might accept, on the authority of the Commission, those portions which made no changes, but were merely a codification of the existing law; and if it would do so, he saw no good reason why the Bill should not pass this Session.
    MAJOR NOLANobjected to the principle that this Bill was not to be discussed by lay as well as legal Members. This was a Bill which affected the public, whose Representatives they were; and, in his opinion, instead of referring it to lawyers, and instead of curtailing discussion upon it, both legal and non-legal Members of the House should do their best, especially as it threatened the interests of the public to such a serious extent, to assist the House in insuring it full and fair discussion.
    MR. O'DONNELLconsidered that a Bill dealing with such an immense variety of subjects of such importance as this did must be regarded as one requiring to be examined most carefully and thoroughly. He thought that Members of the House would not have discharged their duty if they took any portion of the Bill, whether purporting to be new law or old law, upon the recommendation even of the distinguished persons forming this Commission. He thought that the House should take the opportunity, on questions of such importance being brought to its notice, carefully to review all the questions dealt with by the Bill in detail, both as regarded the penalties surrounding the rights of property, and with regard to the protection of personal liberty, and in regard to the maintenance of public authority. With regard to the punishment of offences against authority which, in some cases, should rather be regarded as acts in defence of public liberty, whether they considered them in relation to the general or to the particular, to the interests of the State or the interests of the individual, this Bill ought to be criticized, and the fact that its introduction under the auspices of the admirable, and, in many respects, able men, but yet who had not a grave interest in the maintenance not to say the extension of public liberty, should be an additional reason why independent Members should submit the measure to their strictest scrutiny. He did not care to touch upon particular points. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Bulwer) that the interrogation of prisoners was a matter which invited criticism upon more than one side. It was a principle which might work well, and it was a principle which had often worked badly. He by no means disliked the idea of the intro-

    341
    duction of the principle if it were surrounded with proper safeguards; but, at the same time, they should remember that no scenes had been more unworthy of human justice than those which had been perpetrated by means of a liberty of examination, often amounting to torture, being placed in the hands of Judges. He alluded to such a system of interrogation as that to which French prisoners were subjected. Sentimental torture was inflicted upon them; and he regretted to say that a variation of this principle had been introduced into Ireland, where, under one Coercion Act—namely, the Westmeath Coercion Act—the power of examining persons suspected of being capable of giving information was given, and a power to punish the refusal of information even where the prisoners alleged that they possessed no such information. He thought he was only expressing the sentiments of his hon. Colleague, when he said that no enactment had more perfectly violated the sense of popular liberty than that enactment. This power of the interrogation of prisoners placed in the hands of Judges such as they had had in Ireland, and might have again, and such Judges as they had had in England, and might have again, such a power might be most destructive of public liberty, and most injurious to the well-being of the individual. He was not sure whether he was very much in love with the principle of giving a right of appeal in all cases. He had often thought that a fair and thorough trial was more satisfactory than a multiplicity of appeal. He did not wish to dwell upon that point; but he could not express too strongly to the House his own determination to oppose to the uttermost of his ability the passing of that Bill, as bearing any weight from its being recommended to the House by any authorities whatever outside the House. Of course, he had not had an opportunity of studying the Bill, and he was aware the Bill differed materially from that introduced last year. In the Bill of last year he thought there were a great many chapters and provisions dealing with the existing law which required modernizing and humanizing. The conflict between law and material justice was still strong enough in a great many departments of law. There were many other matters upon
    342
    which he should like to make suggestions; but at present he would confine himself to one point. He would venture to say that, so long as the present system of permitting public prosecutions to take place, and public inquiries to be made into the circumstances and lives of persons charged, which prosecutions involved great hardship and suffering to the accused, and afterwards declared innocent, persons, he could but not think that the State should recognize that it owed compensation to the persons thus treated. Whenever persons were charged before the State Tribunal, and suffered great hardships thereby, and were afterwards declared innocent, either through the prosecution breaking down against them, or it being found that no charge could be sustained against them, or through a verdict of acquittal at the trial, then he thought compensation should always be made. A case had recently occurred in the North of Ireland, where some men accused of an agrarian murder were thrown into prison, and treated with great severity, one of them dying under the severity of the prison treatment. After the investigation had proceeded for months, the prosecution discovered that it had no ground for proceeding, and these men were turned out of prison. Instead of the prosperous farmers that were put into prison a few months before, the State turned out of it two poverty-stricken wretched men. In such a case as that, there ought to be some redress for the immense injuries suffered. He thought the introduction of this Bill a favourable opportunity for noticing some provision providing a remedy in such cases.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I do not quite agree with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). I think it is plain that if his suggestion was carried out it would work very hardly against prisoners, because the theory of our law is that a man is to be considered innocent until his guilt is proved. But we do acquit a great number of men against whom there is no evidence—the evidence is not strong enough to convict them. When we declare that such men are innocent, we simply say that because their guilt has not been clearly demonstrated. I should be sorry if it were suggested that persons were not to be

    343
    acquitted unless the jury were convinced of their innocence, for that would be an entire reversal of our notions of the Criminal Law. An immense number of prisoners escape justice, because the truth is not brought home against them. I do not want to alter that system the least in the world; therefore, you cannot say that because a man is acquitted he is to be compensated. He might have been guilty, very likely he was, and if compensation is to follow acquittal, then many that now escape would not do so in the future. At present, we are satisfied with insisting that the guilt of a prisoner must be absolutely proved to the satisfaction of the jury; but either that principle would have to be altered, or many really guilty persons would become entitled to compensation. With regard to the consideration of that portion of the Bill which consolidates the existing law, I have only to say that if we were considering an entirely new Code—new in all its provisions—it would take a considerable number of the Sittings of Parliament to do it. I quite agree with what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), that the Bill has been completely sifted by persons thoroughly qualified, and though their judgment is not the least binding upon the House, still they have prepared and submitted to the House what, in their opinion, is the law—not what the law ought to be—and the House should be very careful not to be too hasty in disputing their judgment as to the actual declaration of the law. For, although it is quite true that every law must be submitted to us, still after the law has been thoroughly sifted and declared, as this is supposed to have been, and the competent Tribunal has declared what the law is, we ought to be very careful before we quarrel with their judgment. I think it ought to be in the absolute power of this House to deal with the whole matter. It may be that the whole question is before us, even if we accept their declaration of the law as it exists. No doubt, the intention of Parliament will be complied with, and it will either pass the Bill or certain portions of the Bill, and pass another Bill in a future Session making alterations in the law itself. So far as the declaration of the law goes, we should be, at all events, very careful before we put aside what in the
    344
    opinion of those learned persons the law is. When we come to the changes of the law, I entirely agree with every word that fell from the hon. and learned Member for Durham, and there are certain cases upon which I have the greatest doubt. I have great doubt with regard to the examination of prisoners. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Dungarvan that much may be said against that system in practice, and that it may work great hardship against prisoners. These are questions which must be decided by this House, and by no one else, however capable; and I quite agree with what has been said, that we ought not to be bound in the least by any statements made by persons outside the House. In any case, we should not adopt the statement without full consideration. I hope the House will remember that there are two or three ways of discussing the Bill. You may take the discussion on the Bill when it is read a second time, and you may raise a series of objections to the second reading, and raise a three or four nights' debate, and you may raise the same discussion again in Committee. The course I venture to suggest as a means of saving time, and really thoroughly discussing the Bill, is that we should get into Committee on the Bill, and then that hon. Members should fix upon the points which, in their opinion, constitute changes, and bring them forward for consideration when they are reached in Committee. The Government will take care that the most ample opportunity for discussion is then given. That will be better than to have a rambling debate on the second reading of the Bill, when all points will be raised, and nothing practical done. We shall save time on the second reading, and we shall save time in Committee. We shall discuss this Bill much more thoroughly and in a much more business-like way by the course I have suggested than by any other. I, for one, hope that the Bill will pass during the present Session, for I think it will be a boon, not only to the Judges and the Bar, but to the general public. The simpler a Criminal Code is, the more likely it is to be understood and observed by those who come under its provisions. I therefore trust that the House will not waste any further time in discussing the points now raised, and will excuse me for making the sugges-

    345
    tions I have done with a view to facilitate its progress, for I am most anxious that the Bill should pass into law as soon as possible, and that everything should be done to facilitate it.
    SIR HENRY JAMESwished for the attention of the House for a few minutes. What he had to say with regard to the introduction of the measure had been to a great extent forestalled by what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, with whose observations he thought most hon. Members would be disposed to agree to a certain extent. No one could wish to object to the introduction of the Bill. Yet for upwards of four hours a rambling discussion had taken place as to whether the Bill should be introduced or not. It seemed to him that the only doubtful point was as to the extent to which the House could accept the labours of the Commissioners. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had wished the House to accept from the Commissioners the result of their labours ill relation to matters of technical procedure. With that suggestion he was disposed to agree, and thought that the House would do well to adopt it. But the Attorney General had attributed to him the statement that the Bill would not pass in its entirety at the end of 15 or 20 years. That was entirely a matter of imagination of his hon. and learned Friend, for he had never made such a statement. But the suggestion he had made, and which he now ventured to repeat, was with regard to the way in which this measure should be carried. The Attorney General did not wish them to accept the measure in its entirety oil the faith of the labours of the Commissioners; but he asked them to accept on their character and authority all matters relating to technical procedure. Probably there were very few Members of that House competent to follow the intricacies of that subject, and he thought they would be doing well in accepting the labours of the Commissioners in their entirety with regard to procedure, and those technical matters with which the Bill dealt. The second point which the Attorney General asked them to accept from the Commissioners was their declaration of the existing law, though the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the subject was open to
    346
    discussion. He agreed that the existing law ought to be open to discussion, for the fact that the law existed did not mean that they considered that it ought to be re-enacted. To take, for instance, the Sunday Observance Act of Charles II. He presumed there would be some difference of opinion on the desirability of removing that Statute. Some might wish to alter it, and others might wish that it should be continued. But many would say that they would not take the responsibility of re-enacting that Statute, although they might be content to leave it alone as obsolete law. In all these cases, therefore, in which the learned Commissioners had stated what, in their opinion, the existing law was, it did not follow that the House would undertake the responsibility of re-enacting it. It seemed to him that the Bill dealt with two classes of measures. The first class consisted of those provisions about which there could be no controversy; and a second of those matters about which considerable difference of opinion might arise. He thought that the second class of provisions ought not to be inserted in the Bill at all. This was a Bill of some 500 sections, and, in his opinion, it contained the substance of 10 or 12 Bills in one, which they were therefore asked to discuss en bloc. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would recollect the sensitiveness of the House some years ago upon the question of Sunday Observance. The Commissioners had thought it right to put in the Bill the law with regard to Sunday as contained in the Act of Charles II.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER.)explained that the Commissioners had not included that and other matters in the Bill.
    SIR HENRY JAMESsaid, that if that were the case this was not a codification of the law at all. A complete consolidation of the Criminal Law would include all branches of it, and the House would not be satisfied with a consolidation of the law which left unrepealed certain Statutes. There were many other cases as to which differences of opinion would infallibly arise, and the Government could not expect that all these matters could be discussed in one measure in one Session of Parliament. Take the questions of law, of political crimes, of treason, the punishment of

    347
    political criminals, and other matters. All those would be obstacles which the House would assist upon discussing at length. The best course to adopt would be to strike out the controversial portions of the Bill and pass the remainder; then different Bills could be brought in to consolidate those portions which were left out by this measure. Everyone that knew the evil resulting from the present state of the law would wish to see an alteration in it. He should be glad to support the Government in getting a second reading of that portion of the Bill not dealing with controverted points.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought that too much was attempted to be done at one time by this Bill. He ventured to say that hon. Members would resist any process of re-enacting laws which they condemned, and, at the present time, there were many such upon the Statute-Book. There were some few observations which had been made in connection with the law which called for some comment. The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Bulwer) said that in the course of judicial proceedings men were very often acquitted who had a right to be convicted; that was merely the hon. and learned Member's opinion; he could not know. The Home Secretary had talked of men being acquitted who were not innocent. Such cases might, no doubt, sometimes occur, and as they also knew, innocent men were sometimes convicted. But every man by law was presumed to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty; and, therefore, if he were acquitted, he was to be regarded as innocent. He did not, of course, believe that all the guilty were punished; but he did think it was desirable that as many should be convicted as could be convicted safely, and no more.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SECRETARY CROSS, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 117.]

    PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 1) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in
    348
    a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Ramsgate, Saint Anne's on the Sea, Skegness, Strachur (Loch Fyne), Totland Bay, Westgate, and Whitehall (Stronsay).
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN G. TALBOT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 118.]

    WINE DUTIES.
    Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the system under which Customs Duties are now levied in this Country on Wine, and into its bearings on the fiscal and commercial interests of the Country:"—That the Select Committee do consist of Seventeen Members:—The Committee nominated of Mr. JOHN G. TALIBOT, Mr. BAXTER, Mr. PHIPPS, Mr. CHARLES PALMER, Mr. HANBURY, Mr. RITCHIE, Mr. SAMLELSON, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. EWART, Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Mr. COBBOLD, Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, Mr. CLARE READ, Mr. JACOB BRIGHT, Mr. CHRISTOPHER DENISON, and Mr. CARTWRIGHT;—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Courts of Justice Building* (44); Racecourses (Metropolis)* (45).
Select Committee—County Courts* (12), nominated.
Committee—Bankers' Books (Evidence) * (24).
Committee—Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation* (32).

NAVY—THE HEAVY GUN COMMITTEE.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that before he put the Question of which he had given Notice, he desired to say a few words by way of explanation. In the discussion which arose some days ago on the explosion in the Thunderer the noble and gallant Lord who represented the Admiralty in that House (Lord Elphinstone) stated that the Government proposed to re-constitute the "Heavy Gun Committee," to refer to it all questions arising out of the explosion; and he understood the noble and gallant Lord also to intimate that the Committee would consider questions generally relating to improvements in gunnery science. Now, on the formation of the Committee very much depended. Was it to be an impartial, unprejudiced tribunal, free from bias of manufacturing departments? Was it to have a full proportion of naval officers upon it? They were deeply interested in the decision arrived at. From 1857 to 1868 we had a very fair and impartial Ordnance Select Committee, and it was under their superintendence all the great gun experiments were made between rival competitors, and by which we had obtained our present construction and system of ordnance, In 1868 Lord Hampton, at that time Sir John Pakington, came to the conclusion that as the great wave of invention had somewhat slackened, and as the Committee had arrived at certain definite conclusions on construction and rifling, the time had arrived when they might accept the general question of construction as settled, and proceed to carry out the armament of our forts and ships on the principles thus laid down. Having come to this determination, the Committee was dissolved, and General Lefroy was appointed a sort of dictator to carry out the general armament on this definite system. Subsequently, when Lord Northbrook's Committee sat, this office was merged in that of Director General. The cadre of the old Ordnance Select Committee was, however, retained, and the secretary and two or

  247
  three officials were attached to carry out, with the assistance of officials from the gun factories or other departments, acting in small committee, such experiments as might, from time to time, be found necessary. Now, he had no wish to question the decision which was arrived at when the old Ordnance Select Committee was abolished. It was most desirable at that time to proceed with a general system, and perhaps it would have been difficult to have done so while experiments on a great scale were being carried out. But, since that date, 10 years had passed away, and gunnery knowledge had not stood still. Enormous changes had been effected, and it was impossible to shut their eyes to the great artillery improvement which had been carried out by private manufacturers, especially during the last two years, which had virtually revolutionized the whole system, and rendered the reappointment of such a Committee a necessity. He would glance for a moment at what these improvements really were. About two or three years ago it was discovered that the pressure in the powder chamber could be regulated so as not to exceed certain limits, first, by increasing the space occupied by the cartridge; and, second, by modifying the nature of the powder, so that it should burn more slowly. Directly this was ascertained, it became possible to increase the charge very largely, and with it came the necessity of lengthening the gun. Two or three times the amount of powder could now be used, and the general result was that with this new type of gun, chambered and lengthened, they could obtain double the power. The enormous leap in advance which this had made in our gunnery science could best be shown by quoting two or three cases. They had obtained very high velocities without any additional strain. The new 6-inch gun, 4 tons weight, had greater penetrating power than the old 8-inch, 9 tons weight, and almost equalled the old 9-inch, 12 tons weight. The new 8-inch, 11 tons weight, was much more powerful than the old-service 25-ton gun, and equalled the old-service 35-ton gun. The old-service 12-inch 35-ton gun would go through the turret of the Thunderer or the Peter the Great at 500 yards; the new 8-inch of 11 tons could do exactly the same. The old-service 18-ton gun
  248
  could penetrate Hercules armour at 500 yards, and the breastwork of the Thunderer and Devastation; the new 8-inch 11-ton gun could do the same at 2,000 yards, and yet the gun weighed 5½ tons less. These alterations had also opened up the question of breech-loaders. Now that they were able to regulate the pressure in the chamber of the gun, nearly all the old objections to breech-loaders had vanished, and with the increased length—26 calibres instead of 16 calibres—they must in turret and in broadside ships have breech-loaders. It was not only the great penetrating power which we obtained, there was another advantage of most material importance. The great additional velocity which was got, going up to 2,100 feet in a second, enabled us to fire point blank up to a long range, and the shot was far more likely to strike an adversary, because the path of the projectile was less curved, and therefore less likely to pass over. This at sea, with ships rolling about, was of the utmost importance. These alterations were, he apprehended, as great as the change from smooth-bore to rifle guns. It was no question of construction, but merely of pattern and length. If this was the state of the case, let them see what was being done towards adopting these improvements. He believed he was correct in saying that the gun factories had not made any of these new type of guns, except two 80-ton guns, and that at the present moment the Navy was still being supplied with guns of the old pattern, which were, as he had already shown, of half the power of the new. Now, he was the last person who would wish to say one word against the gun factories, or would desire to set up any jealousy or friction between the War Office and the Admiralty. General Young husband, who was now at the head of the gun factories, was second to none in ability and in his determination to do his duty. He was quite aware that the gun factories were admirably managed, and that the highest credit was due to all the officials concerned for the manner in which their work was carried out. It was quite clear also that, with the enormous number of forts and establishments scattered about, it was essential that there should be interchange-ability of patterns and ammunition; and therefore they were bound to look with the most jealous eye on any alteration

  249
  which would throw confusion into this vast array of stores. But with these difficulties constantly before them, it seemed to him the very reason why the officials should not be the judges as to what improvements were necessary. What he did blame was the system which made the Navy dependent on the War Department. In the Army there was no urgent haste in altering patterns of heavy ordnance for forts; but in the Navy it was of the most imperative importance that every improvement should be at once adopted. He understood that at least three foreign Governments were at this moment being supplied with these guns of the newest types for their Navies from a private firm which was on the most intimate and friendly terms with the Government. In the Navy we spent vast sums—£300,000 and £500,000—in building our ships, which, say what we would, were only gun carriages. In former days our large ships carried 120 guns, and then the gun element was not of so much importance; but now our largest ships carried only four guns, and therefore it was of vital importance that those guns should be the most efficient it was possible to obtain. Let their Lordships think for one moment of the enormous change in the offensive power of a ship like the Thunderer, if by adopting these alterations they could actually double the effect of her guns and obtain double the penetrating power. Let them remember that this was no mere inventive theory, but it was an actual ascertained fact. If we were to carry out any of these great improvements, it was imperative that the Select I Committee to be re-appointed should be; based on the lines of the old Select Committee. At present the only Body; responsible for these matters, and who had to consider them, was what was termed the Heavy Gun Committee, which was a War Office Departmental Committee composed entirely of the heads of the Gun Department, and on which the Navy was entirely unrepresented. It was true that on a branch of their work there were two naval officers—Captain Bridge and Captain Bruce; but they had only to deal with the 80-ton gun question. On the general subject the Navy was utterly and entirely unrepresented. Now, could this be satisfactory? We had a great Service—whose principal weapon of offence was the gun, whose
  250
  direct interest it was, in every conceivable way, to have the best gun that money could procure—left in the consideration of these vital points dependent on another Department. In the Navy ships had now so few guns that inter-changeability of stores was not so material a point as on shore, and a ship could be very much self-contained. He contended that the Navy had so deep an interest in the gun question, that it must be fully represented on whatever Committee was formed, and, beyond and above that, he thought the Admiralty must be perfectly free. As it was, with machinery and steam engines, the highest skill this great mechanical nation could call forth should be placed at the disposal of the Admiralty. On the Committee he hoped a naval architect would be appointed, in the same manner that Royal Engineers were thought necessary. Experiments against iron plates were made, and questions as to how guns were to be carried arose; and it was most important that the naval architect should be kept fully aware of all that went on, and able to advise and assist. This was a question of the most vital interest to the Navy. The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) the other day spoke in noble and generous language of the manner in which the officers and men behaved after the terrible explosion on the Thunderer, amid that darkened scene of horror and desolation. He went on to say, that with the terrible dangers our men encountered externally from shot above and torpedoes below water, it was to be hoped that no pains would be spared to save them in future from internal danger and from explosions. The best way to effect that was by appointing a thoroughly competent tribunal to look after? He matter; and, with the vast stake the Navy had in the question, he did hope the noble and gallant Lord who represented the Admiralty would be able to say that in future they would not be unrepresented. The noble Lord concluded by asking—
  How many members the re-constituted Heavy Gun Committee is to consist of, and what will be the proportion upon it of naval officers:
  Whether a naval architect will be put upon it:
  Whether any officers identified with inventions or novel proposals submitted to its consideration, or any officer con-

  251
  nected with any manufacturing department, will be appointed or retained upon it:
  Whether the Committee will be directed to make periodical reports; and whether such reports will be communicated either to the public or to those persons directly affected by them within a reasonable lapse of time?
  LORD ELPHINSTONEsaid, he did not propose to follow the noble Lord through the various subjects which he had brought forward, but rather to reply to the Questions put as they stood upon the Notice Paper. The Heavy Ordnance Committee would be re-constituted, and it was intended that it should consist of seven members—two Naval officers, one officer of the Royal Engineers, three officers of the Royal Artillery, one officer of the Indian Artillery. These officers would act immediately under the orders of their own respective Departments—the Naval members under the Admiralty, to whom they would be answerable; the Military members under the War Office, to whom they would be answerable. If at the Admiralty it was considered desirable that any particular experiments should be carried out with any particular gun, they would instruct the Naval members of the Committee accordingly, who would bring the matter before the whole Committee, where it would be discussed, and the nature of the experiments would be determined on; and the War Office would act in the same way. To this Committee, in the first instance, would be referred the questions now before the Heavy Gun Committee, and the question of breech-loading. The Admiralty had not decided as to what officers they would place upon this Committee; but they would be selected as men of the broadest views, irrespective of rank, men specially competent to advise, and men who, although not naval architects themselves, would be, at the same time, qualified to form and express an opinion upon all questions in which naval architecture might form a prominent feature—as, indeed, it must do, a ship being, to a very great extent, as described by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sudeley), a floating gun carriage. For this reason, it was not intended to appoint a naval architect as a member of the Committee. The Government certainly would not feel bound
  252
  to refuse to employ a man because he might have turned his attention to invention. He thought their Lordships would agree with Her Majesty's Government that it would be very unwise to say to a man—"No, we cannot employ you. You are an inventor." Why, everyone who turned his attention to any particular subject was an inventor. An inventor was a man who endeavoured to suggest improvement; and it seemed to him that was the very man to have upon a Committee of this kind—though, at the same time, it was not desirable that any member should have a personal or pecuniary interest in any of the great inventions connected with heavy ordnance, or, indeed, any personal interest in any particular invention. With regard to the latter part of the Question, it was intended that the Committee should make their Reports direct to the Admiralty and to the War Office; and they would consider how far it might be for the public benefit that these Reports should be made public. It was obvious that it would not be desirable that all Reports should be considered public property; for their Lordships must remember that information given to the public was not given to the public of this country only, but to the whole world. For instance, suppose some grave defect was found in our mode of arming our ships or our forts. It would not be desirable that we should publish that fact to the world—especially when it might take years to remedy that defect. And, in the same way, if we discovered some great improvement that could be applied either to the manufacture or to the working of our guns—or, indeed, to any other matter connected with heavy ordnance—it would be most undesirable that we should at once proclaim that discovery upon the housetop, and so give the benefit of it to the world. The question, therefore, of making the Reports public would rest entirely with the Admiralty and the War Office. The inventors whose inventions were under investigation and trial were, of course, in a different position; they were "persons directly affected," and they would probably be made aware of the Report of the Committee, although the public in general might not be. He had so far merely attempted to give a rough outline of what it was proposed the duties of the

  253
  re-constituted Committee would consist of. There might be—and he need scarcely say there probably would be—many matters of more or less importance that would have to be considered. The authorities were fully alive to the great importance of the subject; and in reconstituting this Committee they would spare no pains to make it as good, as effective, and as valuable as possible.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that he understood the object of the appointment of the Committee was that the Naval Profession and the public at largo should be able to entertain a well-grounded confidence in the large guns in use in the Navy; and that another object in view was to inquire generally into the question of the construction of our heavy armaments, with a view to ascertain whether a better class of guns than were now in use could be provided. The deplorable explosion on board the Thunderer, to which he (the Duke of Somerset) called the attention of the House the other day, showed how important it was that the manufacture of our guns should be looked into, and he alluded to this question of guns because he had had experience of the former breech-loading guns, and knew how defective they were. But with the experience they had since had of improvements in construction, he was inclined to think that a better class of breech-loaders could now be made than the guns at present in use, which he confessed he believed to be defective in the metal, in the mode of rifling, and in construction generally. This opened a large subject of inquiry; and, therefore, what he desired to know was, whether the Committee that was to be appointed would be empowered to re-open the whole question of the construction of the guns now in use in the Navy—in fact, whether it would be competent to the Committee to begin the work de novo?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he could assure the noble Duke that the Government intended the investigation should be of the most thorough and searching character.

SOUTH AFRICA—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION WITH THE GATE.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colo-
  254
  nies, What progress has been made towards carrying out telegraphic communication with the Cape of Good Hope?
  EARL CADOGAN,in reply, said, that as the negotiations between the Treasury and the Eastern Telegraph Company and the Telegraph Construction and Maintenance Company were still in progress, he could not make any statement further than to say that the moment the negotiations were completed he would lay the Papers relating to it on the Table of the House.

TREATY OF BERLIN TURKEY AND GREECE—THE NEGOTIATIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE,in asking the Question of Her Majesty's Government of which he had given Notice, with reference to the progress of the negotiations between Turkey and Greece for the rectification of the Frontier, said, he knew that there were not at the present moment sufficient materials before their Lordships to enable them to enter on a full discussion of the subject, nor was his Question intended to provoke one. But it seemed to him that, before their Lordships separated, it would be convenient to ask the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary whether he was able to give them—oven in the most general terms—some information with regard to the progress of the negotiations between Turkey and Greece. Their Lordships would remember that there was a stipulation in the 13th Protocol of the Treaty of Berlin for the rectification of the Frontier of the two countries. It was provided by the Treaty that the future boundary between Turkey and Greece should be left to be decided by the two countries; but it was suggested that, in the event of their being unable to agree, the Great Powers which were represented at the Congress should offer their mediation in the matter. This was reserved as a right to those Great Powers. Nine months had elapsed since the Treaty of Berlin was executed, and during that period we had had no official information as to the progress of those matters. There was the greatest unanimity on the part of the Plenipotentiaries that Greece should receive some accession of territory. That was proposed, in the first instance, by the Plenipotentiary for

  255
  France, but it was agreed to by the other Plenipotentiaries. If he remembered rightly, the noble Earl the Prime Minister expressed the opinion that the existing Frontier was a danger and a disaster, not only to Greece, but to Turkey as well; and he expressed a conviction that the Sultan would be induced to accept an equitable solution of the Frontier question. What he now wanted to ask the noble Marquess was, whether he could hold out any hope that an equitable solution of the question was approaching? They had no official information with regard to the matter; but there had been disquieting rumours which did not point to the negotiations proceeding satisfactorily. He had read in one report that the Turks were fortifying positions on the Greek Frontier. Anyone who had watched the course of events in Eastern Europe must feel that if this question was to be settled, it could only be by the resolute guidance of the Great Powers. He therefore hoped that, if Turkey and Greece had not been able to come to terms, Her Majesty's Government would use their endeavours to induce the Sultan to comply with the wish of the Great Powers as expressed at the Congress of Berlin. The noble Marquess then asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is able to give the House any information with regard to the progress of negotiations between Turkey and Greece for the rectification of their Frontier in accordance with the 13th Protocol of the Berlin Congress; and whether, if those negotiations have not yet resulted in a satisfactory settlement, Her Majesty's Government consider that the time has arrived for the mediation contemplated by section 24. of the Treaty of Berlin?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, no doubt the noble Marquess is right in saying that negotiations have been going on between Turkey and Greece, in accordance with the Article of the Treaty of Berlin, for several months. He seems to think that a long time has elapsed without a settlement having been arrived at. According to my experience of Oriental negotiations, I should be inclined to differ from him on that point, for I have known matters of far less importance take considerably more time. But whether any equitable solution is at hand or not must, of course, depend very
  256
  much on the meaning which each party attaches to these words. Turkey, I believe, is prepared to admit that the present Frontier is not satisfactory; but what precise line is to be adopted for the future is a point on which, up to this moment, the two Powers have not been able to agree—and, undoubtedly, at the present time the prospect of a settlement is not very near. It is not possible for me to go into very close details on the subject, because it is at this moment a matter of communication between the Powers, and I might be prejudicing the negotiations if I were to make any public statement going very minutely into the matter. I shall merely say that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is precisely that which they adopted at Berlin. It is in no respect changed. We continue to advise the Porte; but whether our advice should take the form which the noble Marquess suggests, of "resolute guidance," is a point respecting which I should rather wait for a more clear definition of what is meant by the term before I answer the Question. Advice is one thing; but "resolute guidance" smacks of salt-petre. I am not prepared to say we have arrived at that point yet. I shall only say that our intention is a sincere one to bring about a settlement of this matter; and, in my judgment, the chances of a satisfactory settlement will be greater when the present pressure on another Frontier of Turkey shall have been removed, and that Greece rather than Turkey gains by the delay.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he did not see what difficulty there could be in defining what would be an equitable settlement between Turkey and Greece. How was it possible that Her Majesty's Government could expect to see the Treaty of Berlin carried out when, with cruel cynicism and contempt for engagements to which they themselves were more or less a party, they were prepared to see a settlement of the Frontier between Turkey and Greece put off till "the present pressure was removed from another Frontier of Turkey."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think the noble Marquess could not have exactly heard what I said. I said that Her Majesty's Government now entertain precisely the same opinions which they professed at Berlin.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he did not think the explanation of the noble Marquess quite satisfactory. He presumed that at the Congress it was understood that only a reasonable period should be allowed for those results. The question of the rectification of the Turco-Persian Frontier had lasted a quarter of a century; and he believed it was not yet settled. If the noble Marquess meant that the negotiations between Turkey and Greece were to be of the same character and duration, then it would not be too much to say that the Treaty of Berlin would be a mere mockery.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, Greece has at no time treated the recommendatory intimations in the Treaty of Berlin with regard to its Frontier as at all binding on the Signataries to that Treaty. The noble Marquess who sits on this side of the House (the Marquess of Bath) was not justified in assuming the contrary. All that was intended by the notice given by the Plenipotentiary for France as to what would be the materials of a satisfactory settlement was accepted by the other Powers in that spirit; and nearly at the end of the Congress, when the President wound up the subject which has been noticed to-night in this House, he particularly stated that no Power was bound by the suggestion which had been made by the French Plenipotentiary, and certainly not Turkey. It was a suggestion which was to guide Turkey as to the general feeling of the Signataries to the Treaty. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) must not suppose that in the nine months which have elapsed nothing has been done. On the contrary, there have been frequent communications, suggestions, and proposals made both to Turkey and to Greece in the spirit of the Treaty of Berlin; and I am not at all prepared to say that there has been any fault on the part of the Government in the matter. There are four or five questions as regards boundaries which are still under discussion, and the noble Earl must know that the settlement of one must, in a certain degree, forward the settlement of another. All I can say is that there has been no extraordinary delay in the negotiations which have occurred on the subject of the Greek Frontier. They have engaged the early and frequent attention of the
  258
  Signatary Powers. I myself do not take at all a gloomy view of the subject. I think there are modes by which a fair adjustment may be made, by which Greece may obtain that to which, under all the circumstances, she is entitled, and which the Porto may grant without any feeling of humiliation on its part, or without consenting to a settlement injurious to the interests of Turkey.

  COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865—Was presented by THE LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1ª. (No. 44.)

  COUNTY COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  Select Committee on: the Lords following were named of the Committee:

  Ld. Chancellor.

  L. Hatherley.

  M. Lansdowne.

  L. Penzance.

  E. Powis.

  L. Selborne.

  E. Morley.

  L. Winmarleigh.

  V. Cranbrook.

  L. Blackburn.

  L. Brodrick.

  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.