Sitting of 23 July 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution [July 21] reported—Supreme Court of Judicature (Officers) [Salaries, &c.]*
Ordered—First Reading—Judicial Factors (Scotland)* [257]; Municipal Elections (Ireland)* [256].
Second Reading—Poor Law Amendment (No. 2) [212]; Commissioners of Woods (Thames Piers) [249]; Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) [146]; School Boards (Duration of Loans) [219], debate adjourned.
Committee—Report—Turnpike Acts Continuance [239]; Public Health (Ireland) Act (1878) Amendment [128].
Withdrawn—University Education (Ireland) [183]; Public Works (Loans) [70]; Parliamentary Franchise [84].

QUESTIONS.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSION FUND.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it be correct that the compulsory contributions of the seamen of the mercantile marine towards the Greenwich Hospital pension fund amounted at the close of the year 1834 to about £2,000,000; if he will be good enough to state how much of the said amount has been paid back in pensions or grants to the contributories, and also to their widows and children; and, if he is aware that seamen now in receipt of the Greenwich sixpence pension are debarred from receiving the pension legally due from the muster roll fund; and, if so, if he will adopt such measures as he may

  1099
  deem necessary, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade, in order that aged seamen so entitled may be paid both pensions?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, he had seen the Notice of the Question only within the last half-hour, and it was impossible for him to ascertain the facts since then. The administration of the fund, as the hon. Gentleman was well aware, had passed away from the Admiralty for many years, and they had really no knowledge of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 183.]
  (The O'Conor Don, Mr. Kavanagh, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Mitchell Henry, Lord Charles Beresford, Mr. Parnell.)
  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 183.]

    SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment on Second Reading [21st May] read.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that as he did not see any likelihood of his being able to bring on the Bill during the remainder of the Session, he begged to move that the Order for the Second Reading be discharged.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—VICTORY AT ULUNDI.

    TELEGRAM.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I have just received a very important telegram from the Cape, from Sir Bartle Frere, which I will, by permission, read to the House. It is dated Cape Town, July 8:—
    "I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on decisive victory vouchsafed to Her Majesty's Forces under Lord Chelmsford in a fair fight in the open on July 4, and on subsequent capture and destruction of Cetywayo's Royal kraal, Ulundi. Lord Chelmsford appears, according to his promise, to have awaited at camp on White Umvolosi, till noon, July 3, for delivery of guns and 1,000 rifles by accredited Indunas—required by him as earnest of Cetywayo's sincerity in asking to treat for peace. Conditions
    1100
    not being fulfilled Lord Chelmsford left camp, laagered, and advanced with 2nd (Newdigate's) Division, and Wood's Flying Column. Was attacked on march in open country by Zulu Force, variously estimated at from 12,000 to 20,000. They enveloped the hollow square of our troops, charging on all four sides up to within 60 yards, when Zulus broke and fled under a heavy fire; were pursued by Cavalry, and utterly routed. Lord Chelmsford advanced to Ulundi, burnt and destroyed all military kraals, and returned to camp on White Umvolosi same evening. All arms reported to have done their duty admirably. Zulus slain estimated at 800 by Mr. Archibald Forbes, who rode with above news in 15 hours to Landman's Drift; his telegram reached night of July 5. British loss 10 killed; only name given, Captain Wyatt-Edgell, 17th Lancers, but no other officer killed; 63 wounded—only names given, Colonel Lowe, Major Bond, Lieutenants Pardoe, Jenkins, James; none severely. No other casualties named since last mail in any column. General Crealock, having arranged for landing stores at Port Durnford, is advancing on road to Ulundi. Zulus on line of march coming in large numbers to surrender. Sir Garnet Wolseley, after waiting in vain for two days to effect landing at Port Durnford, returned in Her Majesty's ship Shah to Durban, and proceeded by land to join General Crealock's column. Troops with Lord Chelmsford comprised detachments of the 13th, 21st, 24th, 58th, 80th, 90th, and 94th Regiments, the 17th Lancers, one troop Dragoon Guards, 600 Colonial troops, besides Artillery and Engineers. I have received from Sir Garnet as yet only copy of Forbes' telegram which had reached me previously.
    (Signed)
    "FRERE."

  PRIVILEGE—TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE.
  Order for Attendance of Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell and Mr. John Sandi-lands Ward, read.
  MR. SPEAKER: Let the Sergeant-at-Arms state to the House whether Charles Edmund Grissell and John Sandilands Ward are in attendance?
  The Sergeant-at-Arms: Mr. Grissell is not in attendance; Mr. Ward is in attendance.
  MR. SPEAKER: Will you state what measures you have taken to secure the attendance of Mr. Grissell?
  The Sergeant-at-Arms: The Order of the House for his attendance was served by the Messenger who usually serves the Orders of the House, on Tuesday, and he was informed that Mr. Grissell had gone abroad. The Order was given to Mrs. Grissell, who said she would telegraph to her husband. I have received a telegram this morning from Boulonge-sur-Mer in these words—

  1101
  "Boulonge-sur-Mer, Graham's Hotel,
  "Bourdeaux.
  "To the Sergeant-at-Arms. Grissell sent away. Doctor's orders. Not well enough to travel."
  MR. SPEAKER: Have you any further information from Charles Edmund Grissell?
  The Sergeant-at-Arms: No, Sir.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not know, Sir, what view the House may take as to the telegram that has been read from Mr. Grissell; but I must confess that, to my mind, it does not appear to be at all satisfactory. There is no medical certificate; there are no details that are intelligible, and I think that, under the circumstances, we have no other course open to us than to proceed with regard to Mr. Grissell as neglecting to obey the instructions and Orders of the House. I do not think I need delay the House by entering into the case of Mr. Grissell. As I mentioned yesterday, and as is recorded in this Report, the Select Committee appointed by the House to investigate the matter, have reported that they are
  "Unanimously of opinion that Mr. Grissell, in asserting that he could control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, and the offer he made to do so, was guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of the House."
  That having been reported, and Mr. Grissell having been ordered to attend in his place in the House, and his not having appeared, but having merely sent a communication which, I think, the House cannot regard as satisfactory. I shall beg to move—
  "That Charles Edmund Grissell having been ordered to attend the House this day, and having neglected to attend, be taken into custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my noble Friend the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) is unable to be in his place to-day; but I do not think that many words are required from me in seconding the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me that it will be the almost unanimous feeling of this House that the only course we can adopt is the one that has been suggested by
  1102
  the right hon. Gentleman. If we are to consider our Privileges at all, we cannot take this telegram into consideration, as it is certainly not sufficient excuse; but we are bound to see that the Orders of the House are complied with.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Charles Edmund Grissell having been ordered to attend this House the day, and having neglected to attend, be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: Sir, I rise to Order. I observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that Mr. Grissell had failed to "attend in his place." Now, I want to know—[Cries of "Order!"]—when an hon. Member of this House is charged with any offence against the House, he is ordered to attend in his place: but that, I submit, is not the case in regard to a person who is not a Member of this House. I therefore call upon you, Sir, to set us right on this point.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am very sorry if I used the expression referred to by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford; if I did use it, it was, of course, a mere slip of the tongue.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I wish, Sir, to make one or two brief observations on the question now before the House; or, rather, I wish to elicit information from someone better informed on the subject than myself as to whether Mr. Grissell, if he awaits the conclusion of the present Parliament in some secure retreat abroad, will not be entirely safe from any further pursuit from this House? If that be so, I venture to think that the advice which I was presumptuous enough to give on the first occasion when the matter was brought before the House will, after all, turn out to have been the right advice—namely, that when any person is accused of a Breach of the Privileges of this House he should at once be summoned to the Bar of the House, and then, if adjudged guilty, be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, when the House will proceed as it thinks fit. It appears to me that what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes is, that we should cook our

  1103
  hare before we have caught it, and, I would venture to suggest that this departure from the old precedent is unwise, and that, if we had followed the old precedent, we should have caught our hare in the first instance, and then we might have best determined how the hare should be cooked.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That Charles Edmund Grissell having been ordered to attend the House this day, and having neglected to attend, be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.
  MR. SPEAKER: Understanding from the Sergeant-at-Arms that John Sandi-lands Ward is in attendance, I will ask whether it be the pleasure of the House that John Sandilands Ward be called in? Is it your pleasure that John Sandilands Ward be called in? [Cries of "Aye!" from all parts of the House.] Let John Sandilands Ward be brought in.
  [The following is the entry in the Votes relating to the subject:—]
  "John Sandilands Ward was then called in, and was addressed by Mr. Speaker in the following terms:—
  "John Sandilands Ward; Your conduct in connection with the Private Bill relating to the Tower High Level Bridge has been subjected to patient and full inquiry by a Select Committee of this House. That Committee have come to conclusions, which are clearly summed up in the last two paragraphs of their Report to the House, in the following terms:—'Your Committee are unanimously of opinion that Mr. Grissell, in asserting that he could control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, and in the offer he made to do so, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House. And they are unanimously of opinion that Mr. Ward was cognisant of, and assisted Mr. Grissell in the matter of, this offer, and was likewise guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House.' I have now to state on behalf of the House that the House is willing to hear what you have to say upon the matter."
  John Sandilands Ward thereupon tendered the following explanation of his conduct:—
  1104
  "Mr. Speaker,—Sir, I wish to say to this honourable House, if the House in its great kindness will permit me to do so, That I have read the Report of the Select Committee appointed in this matter, and that I am much distressed at the concluding paragraphs of the Report of that honourable Committee, which imply a disbelief in my repudiation of all knowledge of an improper intention on the part of Mr. Grissell when I called upon Mr. Hooker. Now, I beg to state to this honourable House that I am a Solicitor of some nine years' standing; that I have a large and highly respectable practice, and my clients are persons of means and social position; that my connection with Mr. Grissell has been purely professional; that I understood, so far as the slight conversation I had with him on the subject enabled me, that he—being a connection of the late firm of Grissell and Peto, large wharfingers on the Thames and great contractors—had some special means of acquiring information in connection with the matters then before your honourable Committee; that he in no way told me, nor did I inquire, what those means of information were, or what would be the course he would take in support of his notion that he could influence such Committee; that after introducing my client I had no further communication either with Mr. Hooker or any other persons parties to the Bill or connected with the matter directly or indirectly; that my interview with Mr. Hooker, upon which the allegation against me is based, occupied not more than half a minute, as he himself has sworn. The rapidity, therefore, with which the words alleged to be spoken must have been uttered, and the fact that this hurried interview took place in your honourable House—Mr. Hooker having been called from the Committee Boom to see me, and being most anxious to return—may, I earnestly submit to your honourable House, account for the discrepancy in the evidence on this point; that when I subsequently saw my client and was informed by him that he had signed the letter drawn up by Mr. Cockell, which disclosed a manifest impropriety, I at once told him that he had acted foolishly and ridiculously. I venture to submit to your honourable House the striking improbability of the proposition—that I, a professional man, in large practice as a Solicitor, should voluntarily seek another firm of Solicitors, themselves officers of your honourable House, in order to propose to them a transaction which on the face of it would be in the highest degree censurable and a breach of Privilege. The slenderest consideration of the relative position of Mr. Hooker and myself would, I humbly submit, lead to the conclusion that to do such an act as this I must either be a person having no character or social position of any sort to lose, or a man who had taken leave of his senses. I, therefore, on this point, further venture to say, and I entreat the indulgence of your honourable House while I do so, that Mr. Hooker is entirely wrong in his remembrance of the exact words that were used at the momentary interview so often referred to. I wish also to state with the most unbounded respect to this honourable House that, deeply as I deplore the conclusions of your Committee, so far as that Report refers to myself, I must, in the satisfaction of my conscience, urge upon

  1105
  your honourable House that nothing was further from my thoughts or intentions than that by any act of mine I should infringe the Privileges or in the slightest degree endeavour to diminish the respect and esteem in which this honourable House is universally held; that I should look upon any act which proposed to impeach the known character for incorruptibility which attaches to all proceedings of your honourable House as an offence which, if it were possible for it to succeed, would be a misfortune to my country, and to all representative institutions. In conclusion, therefore, I wish to say that whilst my conscience acquits me of all improper intentions, and whilst my friends and clients, and all who know me, will believe in this emphatic assertion, yet am I here to-day at the Bar of your honourable House ready to bow to its decision—whatever that decision may be—but impressed with the hope that your honourable House will give due consideration to the solemn statement which I now make that I am the victim of a cruelly unfortunate misapprehension."
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that John Sandilands Ward do now withdraw? [Cries of "Aye!"] John Sandilands Ward will now withdraw.
  John Sandilands Ward thereupon withdrew.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, the House has now heard the statement of Mr. Ward. As far as I can collect from that statement, Mr. Ward confines himself to asserting that the communications which he had with Mr. Grissell were of a purely professional character; that he was not at all aware of the nature of the proposal which Mr. Grissell intended to make to him; and he further states that the recollection of Mr. Hooker on this matter was wrong. Well, now, Sir, I observe that the Select Committee had these points put before them; I observe also that the Select Committee, who had the power of examining witnesses on oath, and who went very fully and thoroughly into this question, having heard, as I take it, very much the same defence brought forward by Mr. Ward as that which we have now listened to, came, after full consideration, to the conclusion that the statements made by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cockell were true, and that the counter-statements made by Mr. Ward and Mr. Grissell were false; and under these circumstances they came unanimously to the
  "Opinion that Mr. "Ward was cognizant of and assisted Mr. Grissell in the matter of this offer, and was likewise guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House."
  1106
  Under these circumstances, Sir, I do not feel that I am compelled, or that it would be at all consistent with the wishes of the House, that I should pretend to go over the ground which has been gone over so well by the Select Committee. I assume that, nothing new having been stated by Mr. Ward—nothing having been stated by him that was not before them in the examination that has been conducted by them—the House will be prepared to stand by the decision and the Report of their Committee. This being so, I consider that we have nothing before us but to consider what is the proper course to take with reference to an offence which we must consider to have been committed against the Privileges of this House. Of the magnitude of that offence I feel fully convinced I need say nothing. It is one of those matters upon which one only weakens the gravity by enlarging upon them. Therefore I will content myself by moving—
  "That John Sandilands Ward, having been cognizant of, and having assisted Charles Edmund Grissell in, the matter of his offer to control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House."
  If the House should arrive at this conclusion, it will then be my duty to make a further Motion as to the manner in which Mr. Ward should be dealt with. I think that it would be the most convenient course that I should confine myself, in the first instance, to making a Motion declaring Mr. Ward to have been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House before proposing to the House any Resolution with regard to the course to be taken subsequently.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That John Sandilands Ward having been cognizant of, and having assisted Charles Edmund Grissell in, the matter of his offer to control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. GOSCHEN: Perhaps, Sir, it would be for the convenience of the House if one of the Members of the Select Committee which has investigated this matter would state whether there is anything new in the statement which has been made at the Bar of the House by Mr. Ward. It would, I think, be satis-

  1107
  factory to this House to know that the point which Mr. Ward has raised has been previously considered by the Select Committee and dealt with by them.
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLE: Sir, the statement made by Mr. Ward at the Bar of the House turns upon exactly the same point as that which he made before the Select Committee—namely, this—whether in the original communication made by Mr. Ward to Mr. Hooker the word "control" was used by Mr. Ward, or the word "influence." According to the evidence, Mr. Grissell undertook to say that he could control the decision of the Committee, or that he could influence the decision of the Committee, and that for a consideration he was prepared to do so. When he gave an interpretation of that term—namely, the term "influence," the interpretation sought to be put upon it was, that by evidence, or by information, Mr. Grissell could influence the Committee's decision. Such an interpretation, however, was clearly contrary to the circumstances of the case, as they were detailed in the evidence taken before the Committee, and, strictly speaking, it was hardly possible that this could have been the meaning of the term. But whether the word "influence" or the word "control" was used, I conceive that such a charge as that was equally a charge against the Privileges of this House, and that it would equally, in either case, have affected the character and the conduct of the Committee. I am not prepared to say that the Committee would not have arrived at precisely the same conclusion as they have arrived at, supposing they had believed that the word "information" was used. [Cries of "Influence!"] I beg pardon; I am not prepared to say that their conclusion would have been otherwise as regards the Privileges of this House if they had believed that information was the term used as the means by which either control or influence was to be exercised over the minds of the Committee. But the circumstances of the case, according to the evidence of all the other witnesses, necessarily show that the word "control," and not "influence," was demonstrably made use of by Mr. Grissell, at all events, and, as I believe, by Mr. John Sandilands Ward also. With regard to the other matters which transpired before the Committee, I do not
  1108
  understand that any question is raised by Mr. Ward respecting those matters. I do not wish to press unduly against either Mr. Ward or Mr. Grissell; but this I must say—that the character of their evidence, their demeanour before the Committee, and the inconsistencies they ran into with reference to the substantial matter before the Committee were, to my mind, quite inexcusable. In what way the House will think it right to deal with the matter after the apology—it is not an apology—but after the submission Mr. Ward has made to the House, that is a question for the House to determine; but as to the single question now before the House whether a breach of the Privileges of the House has been committed, I have no doubt in my own mind, and I believe that the other Members of the Committee have also no doubt in their's, that such is the fact, as proved before them.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think, Sir, that in this case also there really can be only one feeling in the House. What we have before us is this fact—that there was reason to believe that a very grave breach of our Privileges had been committed—one as to which it was impossible, with due regard to the character of the House and the dignity of the House, we could avoid investigating with the view of finding out whether the assertion made was well-founded or not. A Select Committee, having the full confidence of this House, has most carefully looked into the matter. They have come to the conclusion that the person who has appeared at the Bar of the House has been guilty of a breach of Privilege. You, Sir, have asked him to make his explanation, and it appears that the explanation he has made is precisely that which he brought before the Committee. We have the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Spencer Walpole) that no fresh statement has been made by Mr. Ward, and we have also his declaration that the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the defence which has now been repeated before us, and which was made before them, was one to which they could pay no attention. It appears to me impossible that the House can take any other course than to assent to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I should like, Sir, to address a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Select Committee in reference to the word "information," which he used just now. Did he mean "information" or "influence?"
  MR. SPENCER WALPOLE: I ought to have used the word "influence."
  MR. H. B. SHERIDAN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the statement made by Mr. Ward before the Committee, that his conversation with Mr. Hooker lasted only 30 seconds, is borne out by the evidence, or not? The right hon. Gentleman said, in submitting his Motion just now, that Mr. Ward had been answered by the evidence of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cockell. It strikes me that he may be wrong in that. I have not read the evidence—I have not read the whole of the evidence—but I have read some of it, and I elicit from what I have read, and what I have heard from the Members of the Select Committee, that it was only Mr. Hooker who impeached Mr. Ward, and that the interview was held between Mr. Hooker and Mr. Ward, and with no other person, in regard to this matter. Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he states that Mr. Ward's statement was answered both by Mr. Ward and Mr. Cockell? It appeared to me that Mr. Ward never saw Mr. Cockell; that the only interview he ever had with anybody in connection with the matter was that which he had with Mr. Hooker, and which he says lasted only 30 seconds. I wish to know if that be a correct interpretation of the time—that the interview lasted only 30 seconds in the corridor?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD): Perhaps the House will allow me to say a word on this subject. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), who has spoken just now, was quite right in his statement of a matter of fact. According to the evidence taken by the Committee, the interview he speaks of lasted half-a-minute—I do not think Mr. Ward said "30 seconds." The expression is one of those colloquial phrases which one does not use with any notion of exactness—the interview lasted about half-a-minute. I think, however, it would be inaccurate to say that that was the only
  1110
  evidence before the Committee to justify the conclusion they have drawn; because Mr. Ward's evidence, the entries in Mr. Hooker's book, and a great variety of circumstances which it is not necessary to go into now, go to confirm, in a very great measure, the clear statement of Mr. Hooker, and that made by Mr. Cockell. There can be no doubt that the whole question before the Committee, as raised on Mr. Ward's behalf, was the same as he has raised at the Bar of the House to-day, and what I understood, and what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sheridan) desired to know, was that Mr. Ward made before the Committee exactly the same statement he has made to-day, that what he did was to say he had a client who could secure the decision of the Committee on the Private Bill. Mr. Hooker's evidence showed that there was an express statement that, for a consideration, Mr. Ward had a client who could influence or control the decision of the Committee. I think that that was what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spencer Walpole) intended to say—that Mr. Ward had said that he had a client who could influence or control the decision of the Committee. I quite concur with my right hon. Friend, that the use of the word "control" or "influence," when taken in connection with the rest of the sentence, would be comparatively immaterial. The broad proposition was that, for a corrupt consideration, Mr. Ward's client would be able to determine the decision of the Committee, and that the Committee would be influenced by such consideration. That was the proposition, and that is what we believe was established by the evidence.
  MR. PEMBERTON: I only desire, Sir, to say a few words. We have not only the evidence of Mr. Hooker as contradicting that of Mr. Ward, but there is other testimony on which the Committee felt bound to act. It is perfectly true that Mr. Hooker was the only person with whom Mr. Ward had any communication on the subject; that is quite true, but that was by no means the only circumstance or evidence which influenced the Committee in coming to the decision they did. In the first place, Mr. Ward stated, that he made no note of the conversation at the time. Mr. Hooker, on the other hand, made a very full note, and that, immediately after

  1111
  the conversation, he communicated the purport of it to Mr. Cockell. Mr. Cockell communicated that statement to Mr. Littler, one of the counsel engaged for one of the parties concerned in the Bill, and it is a very remarkable fact that both the statements of Mr. Cockell and Mr. Littler entirely confirm the use of the word Mr. Hooker asserts that Mr. Ward employed—that is to say, that he had a client who could control the decision of the Committee. And not only this, but a reference to Mr. Ward's books, certainly, in the opinion of every Member of the Committee, entirely confirmed the statement made by Mr. Hooker, and they are entirely inconsistent with the statement of Mr. Ward, that the communication was a mere harmless communication in reference to someone who could get additionl evidence. I believe the opinion of the Committee to have been that the statement that the communication was an offer of additional information on the merits of the Bill was entirely an afterthought, and I do not believe that any Member of the Committee, or any Member of this House, who has read the evidence, would have come to any other conclusion than that to which the Committee have come.
  MR. GRAY: As a Member of the Committee, and as one thoroughly realizing the gravity of the decision which the Committee came to, I feel bound to say that I certainly could not have concurred heartily with that decision were the case against Mr. Ward based solely on the evidence of Mr. Hooker. We had the conflicting testimony of these two gentlemen, and we had to judge to which of them was due credibility. We weighed the entire evidence which came before us, and we found that Mr. Ward contradicted himself, that he omitted to state material facts, and that his evidence really was discreditable judged on its own merits. On the other hand, we found that the evidence given by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cockell was thoroughly consistent, and borne out by all the circumstances of the case; that the entries in the books of Mr. Ward rather tended to show that he had a knowledge of the affair than otherwise, and it was after weighing the evidence upon its merits that we arrived at our conclusion. Although we did not arrive at it without
  1112
  great pain, I do not think any hon. Member who has read the evidence through will think that we could consistently with our duty have come to any other decision.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That John Sandilands Ward having been cognizant of, and having assisted Charles Edmund Grissell in, the matter of his offer to control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, the House having now arrived unanimously at the conclusion that Mr. Ward has been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House, it becomes our duty to consider what course the House should pursue with regard to this gentleman. There are two courses which might be taken; either to commit him to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or to reprimand him for his conduct. I think, having reference to the character of the offence, it is one which could not be treated by a simple reprimand. The proceedings to which Mr. Ward has been a party were of a character different altogether from that class of breaches of Privilege with which we sometimes have to deal. I allude, of course, to those cases in which language of an imprudent, or of an offensive character has been used; language which is apologized for and submitted to the mercy of the House. In this case, a step has been taken which might, if it were passed over, and if it were treated as of comparatively little importance, be allowed to imply that the House was not jealous of that which is the most important of its characteristics—I mean the unquestionable honour of the House. The proceedings of Mr. Grissell are obviously, on the face of them, absurd, and that is the only kind of defence that could be made for them, or the only extenuation that could be pleaded. But this is a case in which it is not sufficient to say that the offence is one of an absurd character; it is one which, if we do not treat it in such a way as to mark our sense of its gravity, might lead to misconception as to the determination of the House. Therefore, Sir, I shall move—
  "That John Sandilands Ward be, for his said offence, committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That John Sandilands Ward be, for his said offence, committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. C. BECKETT-DENISON: Before the Resolution is put, Sir, I wish to say one word. It is this—that there will be no difference of opinion whatever as regards the Motion which has just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That we shall be unanimous on the point is perfectly certain. But there is this other consideration—thatthe grave offender in this matter is Mr. Grissell, who has retired from without the jurisdiction of this House, and, for anything we know to the contrary, he may remain in contumacy for any length of time. Then comes the question, if he should adopt that course, and if he should defy your Warrant, what will be the result? The result, I imagine, will be, that the force of the Warrant will be spent the moment that Parliament prorogues; it can be renewed in the next Session, and again the man may remain in contumacy, defying the House, and receiving no punishment whatsoever. If that be the case—and I am quite ready to be told I am wrong in the assumption—if that be the case, then comes this question for the House, is the lesser offender to receive the punishment which you cannot inflict upon the greater offender?
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I wish to make one remark, Sir, upon the observations of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison), which is this—that his observations appear very inapplicable to the question immediately before us. If I understand him rightly he has doubts about punishing the lesser, because we cannot at present catch the greater, offender. It seems to me that if you are to lay down the law that you cannot punish the receiver unless you catch the thief, the object of justice would seldom be met.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER: Two persons have offended gravely against the Privileges of this House. One has withdrawn from the jurisdiction of this House and the other is now in custody; or, at any rate, is in attendance upon the pleasure of the House. The fact that one of these offenders has withdrawn from our jurisdiction does not in any
  1114
  way affect our decision. The House of Lords can commit for a certain term, but the House of Commons cannot; we can, however, deal with the matter when we re-assemble next Session.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That John Sandilands Ward be, for his said offence, committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

    [BILL 70.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. RYLANDS: I rise to a point of Order. My objection to the second reading of this Bill is, that the Bill now in the hands of the House is different from the Bill originally introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that upon the main point there can be no difference of opinion—namely, that when a Bill is introduced into this House it becomes the possession of the House; and it is clearly not in the right of any private Member to make any alteration in it, without the direct instruction of the House so to do. I wish, Sir, to refer to one or two precedents which appear to bear out the proposition which I now venture to submit to the House—that is, that the Bill now before the House cannot be read a second time. I find that in 1850, Mr. Stuart Wortley brought in a Bill to legalize the marriage with a deceased wife's sister. Mr. Stuart Wortley had obtained leave to introduce the Bill; but in the course of a few days, and before he was to move the second reading of the Bill, it was discovered that the Bill, as introduced, had not been fully matured, and Mr. Stuart Wortley told the House that he had introduced a clause in the Bill which he contended might not materially affect the principle of the Bill. On being appealed to, on the 18th February, 1850, the then Speaker, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, ruled that it was not competent for any Member to make any other than a clerical alteration in a Bill which had once been introduced and read a first time. On the occasion of the second reading of the University Tests Bill, on the 28th March,

    1115
    1873, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hackney, then the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), the hon. Member in charge of the Bill admitted that in the course of the previous few days he had made an arrangement to modify the wording and provisions of the Bill; upon which, Sir, you were appealed to, and you gave decided answer in these words—
    "There is no principle more clearly laid down in this House than this—when a Member has introduced a Bill to the House it ceases to be in that Member's hands, and passes into the possession of the House. No essential alteration of that Bill, at any stage, may then be made without the distinct Order of the House."—[3 Hansard, ccxv. 303.]
    The only other precedent to which I wish to refer is one which occurred on the 23rd of January, 1878, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) brought in his Hypothec Bill. He made alterations in that Bill before the second reading, and when the second reading was called, objection being taken to the Bill being dissimilar with the one originally introduced, you, Sir, ruled that—
    "Hon. Members might make clerical or verbal alterations in Bills; but it would not be in Order for any hon. Member to move the second reading of a Bill which, although bearing the same title, differed materially and substantially from the measure which he had obtained leave to introduce."—[3 Hansard, ccxxxvii. 362.]
    I am quite aware that in the last ruling of the Chair there were words introduced which were not in the ruling of the previous Speaker on a similar question, or in the ruling of you, Sir, on the University Tests Bill. For instance, in 1850, Mr. Shaw Lefevre ruled that it was not competent for any hon. Member to make other than clerical alterations in a Bill; and in 1873, you, Sir, ruled that no essential alterations could be made in a Bill without the direct Order of the House. But, in 1878, I observe that other words are introduced in the ruling of the Chair; for you, Sir, ruled that it was necessary that there should be some material and substantial difference in the measure in order to prevent its being read a second time. I will proceed to show that the Bill which is now on the Table of the House is not the same Bill which was introduced by the Government. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
    1116
    Exchequer will refer to the 2nd clause. In line 18 of the 2nd clause of the original Bill there was a blank in reference to the amount to be repayable upon public loans. That blank has been filled up in the substituted Bill by the addition of the words "four and a quarter per cent." I shall not, however, rest upon that as a very material alteration; but I will come to what I consider a very material alteration. In Clause 4 of the first Bill there occur the following words:—
    "So much of section eleven of the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, and so much of any Act relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland as authorises the repayment of a loan by means of an annuity is hereby repealed so far as relates to any loan granted after the first day of April, 1879."
    But, in the new Bill, the words "and so much of any Act relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland" are omitted. I contend that that is a very material alteration. The effect of that alteration is, that the Bill which authorized the Public Works Loan Commissioners to grant Public Works Loans on annuity, and which originally applied to England and Ireland, is now left to apply to Ireland alone. In the 5th clause of the Bill there is also an important alteration. In the original Bill the clause ran as follows:—
    "Nothing in this Act shall apply to any loan granted before the 1st of April, 1879, nor to any instalments subsequently advanced in respect of such loan."
    Of course, this was a general saving clause to all loans prior to 1879; but there is a further provision in the new Bill to this effect—
    "Nor to any advance which the Public Works Loans Commissioners are authorised to make by sections four and five of the Public Works Loans Money Act, 1876, and the Acts in those sections mentioned, to the Port Patrick and Belfast and County Down Railway Companies, and for improving the harbour of Colombo."
    Now, this constitutes an entire difference in the Bill, for new matter is included in the clause. Well, Sir, I will only allude briefly to the last alteration which occurs in Clause 6, line 25. The old clause had reference to the repayment of the advances to the Public Works Loan, Commissioners; but the clause in the substituted Bill also provides that—
    "Every sum so advanced shall be repaid, and the interest from time to time accruing thereon

    1117
    shall be paid, out of the sums paid or applicable in or towards the discharge of the principal or interest of any loan granted by the Public Works Loans Commissioners either before or after the passing of this Act, or the advance of such sum, and, if such sums are insufficient, shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Now, I submit that these alterations are not in the nature of clerical or verbal alterations, but in the nature of alterations that affect the scope of the Bill. They clearly affect the material points of the Bill; and, therefore, I must contend that we ought not to be called upon to read the Bill a second time. I venture to submit, Sir, the 4th clause, by the omission of the words "and so much of any Act relating to the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland," has an application very different and more restricted than that which was intended in the Bill originally placed on the Table of the House. I think that is a sufficient justification why the Bill, having been altered while in the possession of the House, should not be read a second time, and why the Order should be discharged.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that, before Mr. Speaker gave the House the benefit of his opinion, he should like to make one or two observations in support of the course taken by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and especially in reference to the material character of the alterations which had been made in the Bill. The Bill was one of only seven clauses, and no less than four of them had been altered by five distinct and separate alterations. One of the alterations was the omission of words which were in the original Bill, and the others were the addition of words which appeared for the first time in the substituted measure. As regarded those additions, there was one which his hon. Friend had not referred to, but which, however, was of very great importance. The concluding words of Clause 4 of the new Bill did not appear in the Bill as originally presented. These were "which is not to be repaid within twenty years." By that additional paragraph a whole class of loans was excluded altogether from the action of the clause; and if it were within the province of any Member of the Government to make a change of that kind, it appeared to him that an absolutely new Bill might be brought in, under the cover of the first reading
    1118
    of a totally different Bill. The same remark applied to the alteration of Clause 5, by which a very important Consolidation Act, including many other Acts, and especially referring to two classes of loans, was for the first time excluded from the operation of the Bill. He could not see how, under such circumstances and alterations so considerable in their character, the House could be called upon to consider the second reading of the Bill which was certainly not read a first time some time ago.
    MR. CALLANsupported the objections taken to the Bill. He thought that the Bill ought to be withdrawn, and a new measure introduced.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he desired to explain the facts of the case before Mr. Speaker pronounced upon the question of Order. Such a course would have the effect of shortening discussion, for, as they stood, they were very simple. The Bill had been introduced by him at a rather late hour, and no discussion occurred at that time. Unfortunately, however, the copy of the Bill which he had in his hand, and which was presented to the Clerk on that occasion and afterwards printed and distributed among hon. Members, was an imperfect one. It was usual in these cases that a draft should be sent for revision by the office which presented it, before it was circulated. If that had been done in this case, they would have seen that a wrong copy had been given in; but unfortunately that did not take place. When the mistake was discovered it was too late, inasmuch as the imperfect copy had been already circulated and placed in the hands of Members. As soon as the fact came to the knowledge of the Treasury, it was found that there were several provisions in the original Bill which required alteration, especially that which affected the Irish Land Act. On the 22nd February the incomplete Bill was circulated; but on the 26th February, only four days afterwards, the amended Bill was produced and circulated in a complete form. But this was a matter which occurred as far back as five months ago, and no one until now heard a whisper breathed upon the subject. He thought hon. Members might have managed to make known their objections to the measure before that moment. He, however, congratulated them upon their ingenuity

    1119
    in discovering the objection, and only disclosing it on the 23rd July. Of course, if Mr. Speaker should decide that the Government were out of Order in presenting this measure for a second reading, he had nothing to do but to withdraw it and ask leave to introduce another Bill.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed how the mistake had arisen. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) had not known of the difference between the two copies of the Bill until to-day, and he supposed that was the position of hon. Members generally. But the Government knew of the mistake some time ago, and what could have been easier than to avoid the present difficulty by the introduction of another Bill, and of explaining the mistake? That, however, had not been done. As it was admitted that the alterations in the Bill were not merely verbal alterations, he apprehended Mr. Speaker would rule that only one course could now be taken, and that was, that the Bill must be withdrawn.
    MR. SPEAKER: It appears that the Public Works Loans Bill was ordered by this House to be printed on the 14th of February last, and that it was delivered on the 22nd of February. Subsequently, it was reprinted, and was delivered as a substituted Bill on the 26th of February. Now, if any material alterations in the Bill as originally printed were made in the substituted Bill, such a proceeding was, no doubt, irregular, and it does appear to me that the alterations in the substituted Bill were of such a material character as to render the proceeding irregular. The proper course to take, under these circumstances, would, therefore, be to ask leave to withdraw this Bill, in order to introduce a new Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Well, Sir, I have then no option but to take that course, after your ruling. I beg leave, accordingly, to move that the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bill he discharged, in order that a new Bill should be introduced.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged; Bill withdrawn; and leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINdesired to make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Public Works Loans Bill had been upon the Paper upon the average twice a-week since it was read a first time. It had caused a great deal of interest in the House and in the country, and a number of Gentlemen had been brought down again and again in order to oppose the measure. This was especially the case at the earlier part of the Session, when it was possible that the Bill might be taken as the second Order. Lately, the right hon. Gentleman had promised that it should be taken only as a first Order, and that had, to a considerable extent, released hon. Gentlemen. Considering the lateness of the Session, he ventured to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he could not hope to carry a Bill containing so much contentious matter; and it would be a great saving of time, and relieve many of the opponents of the measure, if he would now say that in the new Bill he would drop all contentious matter, at all events, for the present Session, and that he would be satisfied to introduce a Bill giving the Government all they required to meet the local requirements for the next 12 months.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdoubted whether it would be possible to pass the Bill this Session.

  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL. [BILL 212.]
  (Mr. Salt, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL. [BILL 212.]

    SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [1st July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHexplained that the measure would extend the Act of 1876 to those cases which it did not now reach. It would meet the very peculiar case of the Metropolis, and would relieve the local authorities from certain responsibilities which were now very heavy to bear. He had been pressed by the local authorities of London and the Metropolitan Asylums Board to pro-

    1121
    pose legislation in the direction in which the Bill went, and he hoped the House would now read it a second time.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdoubted very much if there was much chance of the Government being able to pass a measure of such importance at that late period of the Session. He had a very great objection to the 2nd clause of the Bill, which he considered dealt in an unsatisfactory way with the matter in question.
    MR. RYLANDS: I must join with my hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in regretting that we should be called upon at this late period of the Session to deal with a measure of this kind; and in doing so I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman opposite the President of the Local Government Board that the present mode of the election of Poor Law Guardians should receive very great and careful consideration. It is a question which attracts a considerable amount of interest, and the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware that a great many complaints have been made concerning the present manner of election. We have a number of instances in which there have been either frauds or suspected frauds, and, in fact, the present system does afford opportunity for the exercise of personal influence in certain districts. I am pleased to find that the President of the Local Government Board is rather disposed to favour the election of Poor Law Guardians by a poll of votes instead of by voting papers. Under the Bill the permissive principle is established, and this may lead to a variety of modes of elections all over the country. In dealing with the elections of Guardians, I think it is important that they should be assimilated, as far as possible, with other Representative Bodies. Certainly, I could imagine no course more inconvenient than that Poor Law Guardians in the country should be elected upon a variety of modes. I will venture to suggest that Guardians should be elected upon a certain fixed principle, and not according to a mere permissive clause.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, that the clauses in the Bill dealing with the re-arrangement of the boundaries of parishes and other matters were essential to the proper carrying on of the work of the Poor Law, and he hoped the House would regard that as the im-
    1122
    portant part of the Bill, and agree to it. In answer to the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite, a provision had been inserted dealing with the election of Guardians in large and populous places, and in regard to that he should be glad to consider any proposal when they got into Committee.
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday.

  PRIVILEGE (TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE)—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
    ARREST OF JOHN SANDILANDS WARD.
    The Sergeant at Arms reported to the House, That he had taken into custody John Sandilands Ward, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
  COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS (THAMES PIERS) BILL— [BILL 249.]
  (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Gerard Noel.)
  COMMISSIONERS OF WOODS (THAMES PIERS) BILL— [BILL 249.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was an attempt to settle, with the co-operation of the Thames Conservancy, a contention of long standing between the Commissioners of Woods and the pier proprietors on the river. At present, the pier proprietors were under an obligation to pay annually to the Woods and Forests an amount considerably in excess of the tolls. It was not desirable that such a state of things should be allowed to continue; and, therefore, the Woods and Forests proposed to commute their claim into an annual payment of £10 per annum for each pier, thus keeping up their right. Legislative sanction for the arrangement was required in order to give it effect, and that was the object of the Bill, of which he now had the honour to move the second reading, to provide.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson,)—put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 146.]
  (Mr. James Lowther.)
  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL [Lords]— [BILL 146.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he would only occupy the time of the House for a very brief space in explaining its provisions. Its object was to give to Ireland what had been long asked for—additional Local Bankruptcy Courts. The House was aware that English County Court Judges possessed jurisdiction in Bankruptcy cases, and that the Irish County Court Judges had no such jurisdiction. There was, in fact, in England a perfect system of local jurisdiction; while in Ireland the great centre of the Bankruptcy jurisdiction was Dublin. Under certain conditions of a somewhat difficult character, there existed powers to send Bankruptcy cases requiring adjudication to the different County Courts in Ireland; but, owing to certain difficulties, it had not been found to work very well, and it was a jurisdiction which had not been largely availed of, and there had been an urgent and pressing demand from the great mercantile cities of Cork and Belfast, urging that their County Court Judges should have Bankruptcy jurisdiction, which would enable them to do perfect justice, and give perfect satisfaction to the mercantile communities in which they were placed. Now, the Bill, which he did not think would take long to explain to the House, proposed to give to the Recorders of Cork and Belfast complete Bankruptcy jurisdiction; and, so far as expenses went, it would not cost much to carry the Bill into execution. With regard to the Recorder of Cork, he at present received £2,000, and he was under conditions of office by which he would discharge this Bankruptcy jurisdiction without receiving any additional pay; and, as regarded the Recorder of Belfast, during the continuance of his particular period of office, he would not require his salary to be increased; and the new Recorder would not be entitled to receive any extra remuneration whatever for the new duties under the Bill. But in the measure, besides providing for that new Bank-
    1124
    ruptcy jurisdiction for Cork and Belfast, two chief cities of commercial interest next to Dublin, there was a power given to grant similar jurisdiction to the Recorder of Derry and the Recorder of Galway, if it were thought necessary to do so. Machinery was also provided in the Bill for bringing the Act into operation with the least possible expense, by means of the usual jurisdiction, and power was given to attach jurisdiction to existing officers, or to appoint additional officers where it was thought necessary. These, however, were matters of detail, and if any suggestions could be made for improving the terms of the measure, and for carrying out more effectually the working of the new jurisdiction by other officers, they would be carefully and fairly considered in Committee. The Bill also dealt with current proceedings under certain restrictions; but that was a matter for after consideration which it was not necessary to discuss at present. In the districts to be affected by the measure there existed, as he was aware, a perfect and strongly-expressed unanimity of opinion in its favour; and, in fact, he understood, so far as his information went, that the only opposition to the measure came from the rich City of Dublin. He desired it, however, to be understood that no opposition was offered by the Bill to the Dublin Bankruptcy Court. The Judges of that Court, he believed, were most able and efficient, and administered their jurisdiction with the greatest ability. That, however, was not the question. The question really was, whether those great communities of Cork and Belfast were entitled to have the jurisdiction intrusted to them in Bankruptcy which they asked for? While every freedom would be given to hon. Members to discuss the provisions of the Bill, he hoped the House would read it a second time, and that all questions which might suggest themselves as to the details would be brought forward in Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.)
    MR. MELDON, in moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a

    1125
    second time that day three months, said, he must resent the insinuation that any opposition coming from him to the measure was in any way an opposition coming from the Dublin practitioners.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he had made no insinuation of the kind, and was sorry to have been so understood.
    MR. MELDONdid not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant by the allusion to the Dublin Court of Bankruptcy. The Court of Bankruptcy which existed in Dublin was the Irish Court of Bankruptcy, and not the Dublin Court. Disclaiming the slightest wish to oppose the Bill, either in the interest of centralization, or of the Dublin Court, or of the Dublin practitioners, he would say that what the Bill proposed to do was to abolish one of the finest and most successful legal institutions in the world. The Irish Bankruptcy system was, he ventured to say, one of the best systems of Bankruptcy in the United Kingdom. It was a system which was fully investigated in 1872, when the whole subject of Irish Bankruptcy was inquired into most thoroughly before the Select Committee of the House of Lords. It was admitted by the Members of the House who had for years past taken the greatest interest in Bankruptcy Law that the system in Ireland most favourably contrasted with that of England. The expense in Ireland of the administration of Bankruptcy estates was, he ventured to say, as small as in any Bankruptcy system in the world. That being so, he thought the House ought very seriously to consider whether it was prudent to interfere with a system which had been working so successfully, and as to which no complaints whatever had been made, and no necessity shown for any alteration in the law. He purposed tracing the course of legislation with respect to Irish Bankruptcy Law from 1857 down to the present time, and thought he could demonstrate, most conclusively, that the principal reason why the Irish Court of Bankruptcy had been so successful was that it was managed in Dublin with a small trained staff, and because in the Irish system there was wholly absent the mischiefs which had arisen in the administration of Bankruptcy in England in consequence of local Bankruptcy Courts. In 1857 the principal Bankruptcy Act was passed. The system of
    1126
    Bankruptcy which was then introduced was this. There were three systems. There was first the system of Bankruptcy where the adjudication in Bankruptcy took place, and where the Bankruptcy proceedings were conducted in the usual form down to the end. Then there was the other system, by which the insolvent might propose to his creditors a scheme of composition. Then there was the third system, which had been really productive of so much good in Ireland, and it was an arrangement under the Court of Bankruptcy, but without Bankruptcy, which arrangement might very fairly be followed in this country. That law worked very easily, until some changes were thought necessary; and, in 1872, an investigation took place with reference to Bankruptcy in Ireland, and that resulted in an Act of Parliament which was passed in 1872. Agitation followed from Belfast down to Cork. It was suggested that a great want was felt for some local tribunal to administer Bankruptcy matters in the North of Ireland. The case was also put forward that the farmers in the North of Ireland were most anxious that some system should be introduced whereby, under the control of the Court, a system of trusteeship should be introduced. Extensive evidence was taken, and every disposition was shown to meet the views of traders, and especially those coming from the North of Ireland; and, accordingly, a series of clauses called Trustee Clauses were introduced into the Bankruptcy Act of 1872, in consequence of the claims put forward by the commercial men of the North. In deference to their views also, an unlimited power of transfer was given to the local tribunals, if necessary. The only thing that was asked of the Committee which was not granted was, that the right to have initiatory proceedings in the local tribunals was not granted to them. In the English system, power was granted to initiate proceedings in the inferior Courts, and the jurisdiction might not arise before a highly-skilled and competent Judge. A case that had occurred in the Court of Appeal had shown that there was a defect in the English system, in that the initiatory proceedings took place in the inferior Courts; but it was thought, in passing the Act of 1872, that an adjudication in Bankruptcy, by a proceeding affecting a man's entire prospects in life, should not take place

    1127
    in an inferior Court, but in a superior, and that afterwards most unlimited powers should exist to transfer to inferior Courts. The result of the investigation was to place the Law of Bankruptcy in Ireland in the condition in which it at present was. What had occurred to alter the circumstances from 1872 downward? They had not heard from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland any instance of hardship. No case whatever had been made out, except a general statement that this change in the law was desired by persons in Cork and Belfast. Before he sat down, however, he would show that the change which was proposed would be most mischievous and erroneous. The law was most materially altered by the powers of transfer to the Judges; but what had been the result of the change in the law? There was no difficulty whatever in getting a transfer to the local tribunals; but the system worked so well in Dublin that, while there might have been one case of transfer, certainly from 1872 down to the present time there had not been half-a-dozen such cases. The system of the Irish Court had given unqualified satisfaction to all classes. In England one of the greatest defects had been the number of officers spread all over the country, and which had led to a most fraudulent state of dealing with Bankruptcy property all over England. That was the statement made by the hon. and learned Attorney General for England as one of the greatest defects of the English system; but now the Government wanted to extend the system to Ireland. They wanted to have an expensive staff of Registrars, official assignees, and other persons, because powers were taken in the Bill that the Lord Lieutenant should at any time extend the jurisdiction of the local Courts. But what was the reason why the Irish system had been so successful? The Irish Court of Bankruptcy was presided over by two Judges, before whom all initiatory proceedings must be taken, and who, in every case, acquired complete control. Those Judges were assisted by two official assignees; and he ventured to challenge the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland to say if the work had not been well performed by these official assignees, who were appointed for the whole of Ireland.
    1128
    Without the slightest hesitation, he would say that the way these gentlemen had performed their duties was above suspicion, and that the system had given the greatest satisfaction, and obtained the highest praise from those most interested. It was now, however, proposed that the number of the assignees should be increased, and one given to every local Court. The appointment of fresh officers was a most undesirable thing in the first place; but those two gentlemen, who had done the work up to the present time, and in a most satisfactory manner, ought to be allowed to continue. The staff at present employed was small and well-drilled; but it was now proposed to have different staffs all over the country; and that was the evil of the English system. Unfortunately, in England, the amount of business was great, and it was impossible to remedy this evil; but in Ireland the state of things was very different. From want of manufacturing interests in the country, the great number of creditors were English, and Dublin was the most accessible place for them in Bankruptcy proceedings. If they had to go to Dublin, to Belfast, to Derry, and to Cork, and all the other places, they would require different solicitors, and would require to be constantly travelling about, and it would seriously interfere with business. He opposed the Bill upon the ground that it would entirely change what had heretofore been a perfectly successful system; also, because it would lead to increased, expense in the appointment of officials, and it would give facilities for fraudulent dealings. There was no demand for the measure in the country by way of Petitions, neither could it be pointed out that there had been any demand for it by Chambers of Commerce. In conclusion, he begged, for the reasons he had stated, to move its rejection.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. P. CORRY, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, his constituents were very much interested in its passing. Small traders in Belfast and the neighbourhood were put to very

    1129
    great inconvenience and expense by having to go to Dublin with. Bankruptcy-cases, and a friend of his was so disgusted with the worry of frequent adjournments that he gave the matter up, and the bankrupt got his discharge, although it was believed to be a gross case of imposition. The Belfast Chamber of Commerce had had the matter under consideration for the last 10 years, and from time to time had impressed upon successive Governments the necessity of establishing these local Courts of Bankruptcy. It was only last Session they were able to get the matter put in the shape of a Bill; but it was too late to get it through then. He hoped that the Bill, having passed through the House of Lords, would pass its various stages in this House without difficulty. The hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had said English creditors would rather go to Dublin; but the fact was that the large proportion of creditors were in the locality. He did not wish to go into the details of the measure, but was much surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Kildare should oppose a Bill like this, because the hon. and learned Member was so much in favour of Home Rule. The Bill proposed to give local Courts, and in doing that much of the inconvenience at present existing, arising from the central Court, would be done away with. His (Mr. Corry's) hon. Friends the Members for Cork City and Cork County were quite as anxious that the Bill should be pushed forward as were those in the North of Ireland. He suggested that if English creditors had to come over to look after Irish debtors it would be very pleasant for them to go to Cork or Belfast and see the country. He earnestly supported the second reading, and hoped the Government would see their way to press the Bill to a successful issue that Session.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, it was quite a mistake to say the Bill was not supported by Petitions. There had been Petitions from the Limerick Corporation, Chamber of Commerce, and Board of Guardians. He cordially supported the principle of the Bill, for the simple reason that if they had local Bankruptcy Courts local creditors would have a much more powerful supervision over the proceedings than they could have in Dublin. He ventured to think that under such a local system as was proposed in the Bill
    1130
    the amount in the pound paid by debtors would be considerably raised. Without imputing fraud, there was no doubt that country creditors were deterred by the uncertainty of the present proceedings and the frequent postponements. He could quote many cases in which 7s. and 8s. in the pound had been accepted, and in which something much nearer 20 s. in the pound would have been realized if the examination of the bankrupt had taken place before the eyes of his neighbours and fellow-townsmen, who knew what he had been doing, and what he ought to be able to pay. Having said so much in favour of the principle of the Bill, he regretted to find there was no mention of Limerick in the Bill. Cork and Belfast were, no doubt, larger towns; but the people of Limerick, and other parts of Ireland also, were subjected to very much inconvenience in consequence of the present law, as they had to take long journeys. Limerick was a place with a large population, and there were many small towns in the county that could be brought within the jurisdiction of a Court established in the city, while such a Court would serve the wants of a large agricultural population. The commercial prosperity of Limerick had for a long time been increasing, and where that was the case with regard to any district there was a great necessity for a complete Bankruptcy system. He thought the importance of Limerick as a commercial and agricultural centre fully entitled it to be placed in the same position as Cork and Belfast; and he appealed to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland to give it the same position, without any recourse to the Lord Lieutenant. The system of giving the Lord Lieutenant and his Privy Council powers to confer jurisdiction had not been a satisfactory one, as was proved by the experience of Belfast in the matter of a local Admiralty jurisdiction. He trusted the facts contained in a recent Return would now operate successfully in that matter. However, if the name of Limerick were not introduced into the Bill in some way on the footing of Galway and Londonderry, if not on the footing of Cork and Galway, he would reluctantly feel it his duty to oppose the further progress of the measure.
    MR. MURPHYsaid, he should give the Bill his most cordial support. The

    1131
    matter had for a very long time engaged the attention of the commercial community of Cork. The inconvenience which had occurred in relation to these Bankruptcy matters, particularly in reference to small traders, was almost inconceivable. One might almost say that the present arrangements held out a premium and incentive to the dishonest trader to put his creditors absolutely at defiance. It was notorious that a very great number of creditors abandoned the possibility of getting anything from their bankrupt debtors, because the expense of the process would probably be more than the dividend they would receive. The very railway fare from Cork to Dublin, and the cost of staying in Dublin a day or two, were often sufficient to swamp the dividend. He recollected when there was a Bankruptcy Court in Cork Commissioners in Bankruptcy sat there, and often administered large estates with great advantage. These Commissioners' Courts were abolished by over-centralization, and the late Lord Plunket said the reason was to insure greater uniformity of practice. The course which was afterwards taken in England with regard to Bankruptcy Procedure ought to have been followed in Ireland; but it took a long time to get English improvements in law to Ireland, in proof of which he would instance the Common Law Procedure and Admiralty Jurisdiction. Reverting to the Bill before the House, he said it was one that was required by the localities. It would do an enormous amount of good; and he was rather surprised that a patriotic Irish Member, who was an advocate for the largest possible extension of local jurisdiction, should raise any objection to this measure, which was wanted by the people of Cork, and which nobody could, after consideration, reasonably oppose.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYalso warmly supported the Bill, but thought it was not necessary to take up the time of the House with further reasons than those which had been already given. He could not help, however, expressing the hope that the principle of the Bill would be extended to other matters than Bankruptcy in Ireland.
    MR. SHAWsaid, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had seemed to consider that the measure implied an attack on the
    1132
    Irish Court of Bankruptcy. He (Mr. Shaw) was sure nothing was further from the minds of its promoters. They believed the Bankruptcy Court of Dublin was administered with great ability and impartiality; but they held that great inconvenience arose from carrying out the law as it stood. It was said that a large proportion of the creditors were English and Scotch merchants. Well, he knew that was not the case in the South of Ireland. It might be so in Dublin; but he knew that such a statement would not apply in the South. Referring to the inconvenience of carrying out the law as it stood at present, he would instance a case in which a trifling objection to the books caused their removal to and back from Dublin on three different occasions.
    MR. SYNANbelieved the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had merely made an objection as a pro formâ Motion from his love of abstract justice, and his knowledge of the superiority of the administration of justice in Dublin. He, therefore, seconded the appeal to the hon. and learned Member not to put the House to the trouble of dividing on a question on which Irish Members were unanimous. He would also second the appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland on behalf of the City of Limerick. He did not exactly know why Limerick had been left out of the Bill. It ought to be in the 4th clause, and unless it were introduced into either the 4th or the 5th he would join the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) in opposing the Bill at a subsequent stage. He had no doubt, however, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would give them an assurance on the point.
    MR. BRUENsupported the Bill. He, too, would add his voice on behalf of Limerick, and thought it would be right to extend the scope of the Bill so as to include that town and county. Acknowledging the authority of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) on the question, he could not help thinking that hon. and learned Gentleman's love for Dublin institutions had induced him to attach too great an importance to the maintenance in Dublin of the sole administration of the Bankruptcy Law.
    MR. M. BROOKSopposed the measure. It appeared to him that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) desired to promote the interests of those towns at the expense of the general interests of the community. He believed that the administration of the Bankruptcy Law in Dublin, which was not only the geographical, but the commercial, centre of Ireland, was of the greatest possible advantage. There was in Dublin a small and efficient staff, fully competent to administer the Bankruptcy Laws for the whole of the country. He believed that to have to go to Cork or Belfast would often be detrimental to the interests of the traders for whom his hon. Friends were so solicitous. The real question was, where was the line to be drawn? If they were to have a Bankruptcy Court in Limerick, and another in Cork, and another in Belfast, why should Gal way, Kilkenny, Wicklow, and Wexford be deprived of the advantages of a local Court? He disbelieved in the necessity for these local Courts altogether. Certain facilities existed in Dublin, to which people could come in three or four hours from any part of the country, and except it might be to a few professional men in the districts named, he could not see that any good would be derived from the Bill, which would at all counterbalance the great disadvantages that would arise from it. There had been no complaint from traders, and from no one, except a few professional men; and a representation lately emanated from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce as to the disadvantages which would result from the passing of the Bill. He thought that on every ground, except the convenience of the professional men he had alluded to, the argument was entirely in favour of continuing the present very efficient and satisfactory system.
    MR. CALLAN, who also opposed the Bill, said, that he had inquired in Dublin as to the opinion upon it, and he had found there was a universal concurrence of opinion amongst the barristers there, and amongst those, too, of the greatest experience, against it. An eminent Judge, to whom he had spoken, had told him that the Bill, if passed, would cause much dissatisfaction. He would also refer to the evidence given at some length by Judge Harrison against the
    1134
    principle of the Bill. The constitution of the Irish County Courts, said that eminent Judge, differed very materially from that of the English Courts in many salient points, a fact which he (Mr. Callan) mentioned for the benefit of English Members, who fancied that a system which worked well in England would work just as well in Ireland. Unless the constitution of the Irish Courts was radically altered, Judge Harrison was of opinion that it would not be well to localize the administration of the Bankruptcy Laws. That being the opinion of Judge Harrison, and there being no demand for the Bill in any quarter of Ireland, except from one or two parties in Belfast and Cork, he would proceed to state other reasons why it should not be passed. It would not be possible to create the necessary staff of officers in Belfast and Cork under an expenditure of £1,500 a-year in each town, in addition to which they must increase the Recorders' salaries, probably making a total increase of expenditure of £5,000. He wished it to be understood that he had no interest in Dublin whatever—in fact, he had a very great dislike to Dublin. His only objection to Home Rule was, that if they got it they would have to have a Parliament in Dublin, and not in Cork, or Belfast, or Galway. The history of the Bill was peculiar, because the matter remained in abeyance until one of the Law Officers of the Crown was looking for a seat in Parliament. He turned his eyes upon the town of Belfast, and to recommend himself he recommended the Irish Executive to confer upon the town local powers in Bankruptcy. He hoped that was the explanation of the Bill, because he did not like to see Cork and Belfast proclaiming that their condition was such as to require local Bankruptcy Courts. There had been an unprecedented number of bankruptcies in Cork during the last 18 months, and he found three-fourths of the creditors belonged to England, Scotland, and Dublin. English creditors, who did business in a large way, generally had agents in Dublin to prove for them, and he believed the present arrangements had given the greatest satisfaction. If the Bill passed, his belief was that it would work very injuriously in the interests of the persons affected, and he intended to offer it all the opposition in his power.

    1135
    He should like to repeat the opinion of Lord Westbury on the subject. Lord Westbury was the most eminent authority on the subject in England or Ireland. Lord Westbury had said to Judge Harrison—
    "I must tell you most distinctly that, so far as I am concerned, I think it would most effectually checkmate your cause, because I feel that we are not in a position to teach you in Ireland. We have been ourselves for the last 10 years muddling this affair of Bankruptcy and making it worse with every Bill. We have brought it to this—that an expense of 30 or 40 per cent is not to be wondered at; and if you have done your corresponding part of the business at an expense of 14 or 15 per cent, I think you have nothing to learn from England."
    He (Mr. Callan) contended that no authenticated case of complaint ever rose under the system; but that simply to comply with the pressure of certain Members who sat behind the Government the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was introducing a Bill to interfere with a Court which was carrying on its business at an expense of 14 or 15 per cent. He was about to follow the example of England, and to meddle and muddle in the matter of Bankruptcy, making it worse every year until he increased the 14 or 15 per cent to 30, or 40, or 50 per cent. He (Mr. Callan) contended, moreover, that the Bill had come upon him and the House by surprise, neither he nor the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) having been aware that the Government intended to proceed with it on that day.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, there are only, so far as I know, three, or, perhaps, four, hon. Members from Ireland who are opposed to this Bill. Two others appear to have been sent to us providentially; but they all attempt to suggest an entirely false inference. The introduction of this Bill is, by no means, an attack upon the Irish Courts of Bankruptcy. Much has been said with regard to the Courts of Bankruptcy now existing in Ireland, and I may say that no one can think more highly of them than I do. The Judges and the officials of those Courts are most capable men, and I know of no body of public servants who are entitled to be spoken of with more praise than the officials of the Irish Bankruptcy Courts. But that is not the question.
    1136
    The question is, whether the large mercantile communities of Belfast and Cork are entitled to have a local Bankruptcy jurisdiction? The principal merchants and traders of those cities have unanimously asked for it, and have pointed out that it would be an immense benefit to them and their local affairs. If they are entitled to have it, having also pointed out that in England there is a similar jurisdiction to that which we propose in this Bill shall be given to Ireland, I do not see that they should be denied. We have not proposed to give this local jurisdiction recklessly everywhere; but we have picked out two of the largest and most important places for the purpose of establishing the new system there; and with respect to other districts, if the Lord Lieutenant should signify that a fair and a reasonable case has been made out, I have no doubt that justice shall be done. Now, I have been pressed, and reasonably pressed, by hon. Members from Ireland as to the necessity of including Limerick in the Bill; and I have been asked whether, in Committee, I will make provision for that city? It is most natural that hon. Gentlemen should consider the interests of Limerick; but I will say at once that I do not see my way clear to granting that which has been asked upon the 4th clause. At the same time, I will take care, in considering the 5th clause, that the Lord Lieutenant shall have, if necessary, an opportunity of considering whether the local Bankruptcy jurisdiction shall be given to Limerick, which is certainly a city of the greatest importance. I do not think it would be reasonable for me to go into the details of the Bill and the many criticisms that have been made, as they will, no doubt, be brought forward again in Committee, where, I am sure, they will receive consideration; and I will now ask the House to give the Bill a second reading.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that, after the expression of opinion that the Bill would work in the interests of the country, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

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

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—VICTORY AT ULUNDI.

    TELEGRAMS FROM GENERAL CLIFFORD AND SIR GARNET WOLSELEY.
    COLONEL STANLEY: I think, Sir, upon this Motion, it would be convenient that I should take the earliest opportunity of making known to the House a telegram which I have received this morning, the first part of which is, apparently, from General Clifford, and. the second from Sir Garnet Wolseley.
    [The right hon. and gallant Gentleman then read the telegrams, which appear in pp. 1096–7–8.]
    At the conclusion of the telegrams, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said: I think it will not be out of place to add an expression of satisfaction that Lord Chelmsford has been able to vindicate his character as a military commander, and to show that his Force have practically been able to combine at the point indicated, and that his success has so far been complete.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I rise, because I am very unwilling that there should not be someone on this side to express the satisfaction we must all feel at the news which has been conveyed to us. It seems to me that there is one expression in the telegram which has been read which necessitates someone from this side of the House saying how cordially we hope the wishes expressed by Sir Garnet Wolseley may turn out in the result to be true—namely, that the war will soon be over. I understand that to be the expression made use of, and I do most certainly trust that this expectation may be fulfilled. Whatever opinions may have prevailed as to the first policy of this war, or any portion of its conduct, I am quite certain that throughout the whole country there has existed but one feeling, and that was an anxious desire that the British honour might be vindicated, and that the prestige of the British arms, which seemed at one time to be imperilled, might be restored. The hope that the day may not
    1138
    be far off when the war will be ended is, I say, a wish that is alike dictated by feelings of the purest patriotism and the truest humanity.
    SIR ARTHUR HAYTERasked the Secretary of State for War, whether Lieutenant Carey, of the 98th Regiment, who was mentioned in the despatch as coming home in the Euphrates, was the same officer that had been tried by court martial; and, also, whether the news had been confirmed that Captain Wyatt-Edgell, commanding a troop of the 17th Lancers, had been killed, as some near relatives of the latter had come down to the House to inquire whether it was true?
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, with regard to the first part of the question, he believed that one and the same officer was meant. As regarded the second part, he feared that it was only too much to be regretted that Her Majesty's Service had lost a very gallant officer in Captain Wyatt-Edgell.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Friday.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  (Mr. Salt, Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.

    [BILL 239.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preamble postponed.
    Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
    SIR ROBERT PEELasked who had charge of the Bill?
    MR. SALTsaid, he had.
    SIR ROBERT PEELwished to know if the hon. Gentleman could give any information with regard to the continuance of the Tamworth trusts?
    MR. SALTsaid, he was afraid that he could not give any information at that moment with regard to that particular trust. It was a matter of great detail. He would be happy to furnish the right hon. Gentleman with any information in his power to obtain.
    SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, some years ago, he brought this subject under the notice of the House. The town of Tamworth, which he had the honour to represent, was encircled by a net-work of

    1139
    turnpikes. One could not move two or three miles out of that town without having to pay toll. He did not know why the Tamworth trusts should he continued, while so many other turnpikes had been abolished; and he should like to know why they were continued as an exception to the general rule?
    MR. SALTsaid, there were two classes of trusts, some of which came before the Turnpike Trusts Committee every year, which dealt with each one upon its merits. Sometimes the trusts were continued up to a certain date by the Committee, with a view to their consideration again, at a particular date. For instance, certain trusts had been continued up to the 1st of November, 1880; they would be considered next year. There was another class of trusts whose Local Acts would expire in a particular year. Next year a certain number of these Local Acts would expire, and they would come in the usual course before the Committee. When the trust to which the right hon. Baronet referred came up it would be considered and disposed of by the Committee. There was also another class of trusts disposed of by this Bill, in which the trusts having come to an end, and the debts having been paid off, the trustees themselves applied for the trust to be discontinued. So soon as the interest to which the right hon. Baronet referred came under any one of these categories it would be dealt with. Any further information in his power to give he would be glad to supply.
    Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
    Schedules 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
    Schedule 5.
    On the Motion of MR. SALT, the following Amendments were made:—In page 7, line 6, in column (County), insert "Chester;" page 7, line 6, in column (Name of Trust), insert "Stock-port and. Warrington and Washway, United;" page 7, line 6, in column (No. of Act), insert "3a. 7a;" page 7, line 36, in column (Date of Act), insert "7 and 8 G. 4, c. xcv;" page 7, in column (Title of Act), insert—
    "3a. An Act for more effectually repairing and otherwise improving the road from Cross-ford Bridge, in the county palatine of Lancaster, to Altrincham, in the county palatine of Chester;"
    1140
    page 8, line 12, in column (Date of Act), insert "19 and 20 Vic. c. lxvi;" page 8, in column (Title of Act), insert—
    "7a. An Act for more effectually repairing certain roads in the county of Chester, of which the short title is 'Stockport and Warrington Road Act, 1856.'"
    Postponed Preamble read, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 128.]
  (Mr. James Lowther, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland)
  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND) ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 128.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. J. LOWTHER, in moving that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, briefly explained its provisions, and hoped the House would decide that it was for the benefit of Ireland that the Amendments which the Bill proposed should be made in the existing law. The provision which enabled loans to be raised by sanitary bodies in Ireland, he thought, would commend itself to the House. With regard to loans for paving, he proposed to introduce a clause providing that where any Act empowered any urban sanitary authority to cause the streets or footways under their control to be paved or flagged, such Act, so far as it related to that work being carried into effect, should, for all the purposes of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, which had reference to the borrowing money for the purpose of the Sanitary Acts, be deemed to be a Sanitary Act within the meaning of that term. No new matter was comprised in the Bill, which was merely an amending measure; and he hoped that, as Amendments might be offered in Committee, the House would now agree to the Motion he would make. He wished, however, to say, with reference to an Amendment the hon. and learned Member for Kildare had upon the Paper, that it raised matter which was new to the Bill in a rather inconvenient way. The object of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment might be good or might not; but it was hardly one which ought to be pressed upon the consideration of the

    1141
    House upon the Bill. The Select Committee, which then sat upon the subject, had decided against introducing the provisions the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to draft into the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
    MR. MELDONsaid, he had an Amendment to the Motion upon the Paper, which was to the effect—
    "That no Bill to amend the law relating to Public Health in Ireland can he satisfactory which fails to provide for the supervision by properly qualified medical officers of health of the sanitary arrangements throughout the country; and this House is of opinion that this supervision can best be carried out by Local Government Boards having power conferred on them to divide the whole of Ireland into districts, and to appoint inspecting medical officers of health for the purposes of such sanitary inspection."
    He also had another Amendment down to the Bill; but he proposed now to postpone them until they got into Committee on the Bill.
    MR. J. LOWTHERdoubted whether that would in Order.
    MR. MELDONthen proposed to address the House upon the subject, but—
    MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. and learned Member was out of Order, as he had already spoken.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. SALTthereupon took the Chair.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preamble postponed.
    Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
    MR. J. LOWTHERmoved, after Clause 4, to insert the following clause:—
    (Loans for paving.)
    "Where any Act empowers any urban authority to cause the streets or footways under their control to be paved or flagged, such Act, so far as it relates to the paving or flagging of streets or footways, shall, for all the purposes of the sections of The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, which have reference to the borrowing of money for the purposes of the Sanitary Acts, be deemed to be a Sanitary Act within the meaning of the term Sanitary Acts, as defined by The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878."
    MR. MELDONsaid, he had intended to oppose the introduction of this clause,
    1142
    and, therefore, it was necessary that he should state shortly why he did not oppose it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in moving that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, said that this was merely an amending Bill, and there was no introduction of new matter whatever. Those remarks were directed against the Amendment of which he (Mr. Meldon) had given Notice. And yet the right hon. Gentleman himself introduced a clause of the greatest importance, which was quite foreign to the object of the Bill. It was now proposed, in a Bill to amend the Public Health Act, to give the Corporation of Dublin most unlimited powers of borrowing money. It was estimated that the Corporation required some £400,000 or £500,000 for the purpose of paving the streets. The powers of the Corporation were confined to certain matters, which did not include the power to borrow so enormous a sum of money to pave the streets. As they could not borrow that money for any ordinary purpose, the right hon. Gentleman now wanted to say that the paving of the streets was a sanitary purpose; and, therefore, in this merely amending Bill, he put down a clause giving this enormous power to the Corporation. In his (Mr. Meldon's) opinion, it was not a power that ought to he conferred in this way. When the town of Belfast wanted similar powers in a modified form, the course pursued was not to attempt to introduce a provision of this kind in a secret and covert manner into a Bill; but they got a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board, which was afterwards passed into an Act, after full discussion, and the attention of the House had been specifically called to it. But in this case this enormous power was slipped into a merely amending Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary called it. He (Mr. Meldon), therefore, could not, consistently with his duty, assent to the introduction of this clause. But he now understood that hon. Members of the House who represented the citizens of Dublin were in favour of the clause. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), as leading Member of the Corporation, in whom all the citizens of Dublin had confidence, had given his assent to the clause; and the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) also concurred

    1143
    with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in the desirableness of this being done. That being so, he (Mr. Meldon) left the entire responsibility with them, and would not seek to oppose the clause.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND(Mr. GIBSON)said, there had not been the slightest desire to increase the taxation on the citizens of Dublin. He could not agree with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Meldon) as to what he had said in respect to sanitary purposes in England. The paving of the streets was regarded as a sanitary purpose, and so it was regarded in a good many towns in Ireland. The citizens of Dublin did not think it unreasonable that they should be in an exceptional position, and this being represented to himself and to his right hon. Friend he had thought it proper to give effect to the suggestions made to them.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, really the intention of the clause was to assimilate the law in the case of Dublin to that which obtained in every town in the United Kingdom, and to which Dublin was now the only exception. He did not like to hear it said that the clause had been slipped into the Bill by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, as it had been the subject of well-considered Memorials from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of the City of Dublin for a long time.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. MELDONmoved the insertion of the following clause:—
    "The Local Government Board may, from time to time, appoint so many fit persons as the Lords' Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall sanction, being practising physicians or surgeons, to be inspecting medical officers of health, to assist in carrying out the provisions of 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878,' as amended by this Act, and may remove all or any of such officers and appoint others in their stead."
    He said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was quite right in saying this was not the first time he (Mr. Meldon) had sought to introduce such a clause into the Public Health Code of Ireland. In 1877, when the Bill was introduced, he had endeavoured to show the necessity of giving the Local Government Board the power of appointing and exercising authority over medical officers of health. He had
    1144
    brought the matter before the Select Committee, and had not been met with any arguments to show that it was improper to confer such power on the Board. In England, full and ample powers were enjoyed by the Medical Department of the Local Government Board, and this was found to work successfully. The point was raised before the Committee on the 1878 Bill, and it was said the Local Government Board could exercise the same powers as in England; but that had turned out to be not so, and over and over again applications made to the Board had been met with the reply that they had no power to interfere with the officers of health. He did not wish to make the appointment of medical Inspectors compulsory; but he wished to give the Local Government Board the power of making the appointments for two principal reasons. First, because in the rural districts officers of health found themselves, owing to local influences, unable to discharge their duties as they would desire. If it became their duty to report upon the existence of a nuisance under the Guardians, their employers, they had considerable difficulty in making their reports, or in having those reports acted upon when made. Then, again, officers might be found who pocketed the money, but did not do their work. On the other hand, in Dublin there was a difficulty in getting the duties properly discharged; and to secure that the necessity of having a superintendent was severely felt. He merely wanted to give the Board power to depute an officer to see that the duties were properly discharged, and in the Amendment he had substituted the word "may" for "shall." There would be no necessity of appointing new officers; there were other officers in the service; but under the Act there was no power to make it one of their duties to see that the duty of the officers of health throughout the country was properly discharged. These superintendents would be sometimes required to stand between the officer of health and the persons against whom complaints were made; but often they would be required to go about and see that the officers of health were discharging their duties, and this last was most essential in Dublin. It was not easy to get the dismissal of an officer of health for mere neglect; he must be con-

    1145
    victed of misconduct, and what was wanted was the means of keeping a man up to his work; and this was what he desired in giving the Local Government Board the power of making these appointments.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was sorry he could not consent to the insertion of the clause. It would necessitate many fresh appointments, for when the hon. and learned Gentleman said the Local Government Board had in its service competent Inspectors, to whose duties this might be added, without going into the question of how far their time would allow of this, he wished to point out that the words used in the clause, "being practising physicians or surgeons," would exclude all lay Inspectors; and there were no practising medical officers connected with the Local Government Board, for those accepting appointments had to devote their entire time to the service. The clause would, therefore, not only add many new appointments, but a new class of appointments, and would involve considerable disarrangement in the service as it stood. He hoped the clause would not be pressed.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he would not press the Amendment, for this reason, if for no other, that he saw he had no possibility of success in pressing it.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MELDONsaid, the other two clauses, being consequent upon the first-mentioned, he would not move them.
    Remaining clauses agreed to.
    Postponed Preamble read, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE BILL.
  (Mr. Elliot, Mr. Rodwell, Mr. Serjeant Spinks.)
  PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE BILL.

    [BILL 84.] SECOND READING. ORDER DISCHARGED. BILL WITHDRAWN.
    MR. ELLIOT, in moving that the Order for Second Reading be read and discharged, said, he did so on account of the comprehensive character of the measure as affecting the whole of the unenfranchised householders in all the cities and boroughs in England and Wales,
    1146
    and the utter impossibility of a Bill comprehending such grave details being adequately discussed at that late period of the Session.
    Motion agreed to.
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.

  SCHOOL BOARDS (DURATION OF LOANS) BILL.— [BILL 219.]
  (Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Pell, Mr. Reginald Yorke.)
  SCHOOL BOARDS (DURATION OF LOANS) BILL.— [BILL 219.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Pell.)
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEexpressed surprise, saying that he had understood from the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury) that the Bill would not come on. That was at 10 minutes past 2 o'clock.
    MR. PELLsaid, the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury) asked him, subsequently to that time, to move the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day three months, said, its promoters should have given some reasons why it should be read a second time, for it was of a most important character, involving, as it did, the efficiency of the provision made for educational purposes in every borough throughout the country. It was scarcely courteous to the House to have the Bill flung amongst them without a single word in its favour. The House was taken a little by surprise, and it was difficult to know how to deal with it; but he wished to point out to the House that the provision of school accommodation was not at all a voluntary matter. The various authorities were compelled by Statute to provide sufficient accommodation for all children of school age within their districts. It could not, therefore, be pretended that the Bill was directed to economy, for the school accommodation must be provided. The Bill proposed that loans raised for those purposes should extend over periods of 30 years instead of 50 years, as heretofore; and the effect of that must be that a very much larger sinking fund would have to be created. He had not calculated the difference exactly; but he believed it

    1147
    would not be less than an increase of from 1½ to 1¾ per cent per annum on the whole capital expenditure upon building. Hon. Members opposite had posed as advocates of economy in School Board management, and they had complained of the school rate of London reaching 5d in the pound; but if the proposals in the Bill had governed the action of the London School Board, the rate would be at least 1d. or 1½d. more than it was at present. The Board would have had no alternative. They must have made the same provision, and incurred the same expenditure; but the charge on the present generation of ratepayers would have been increased to the extent he had stated. Of course, it was difficult to answer arguments in the dark, and he did not know what might be advanced in support of the Bill; but he could not see that the future generation of ratepayers were in any way damnified by the extension of the loan over 50 years. The buildings erected for the purpose of schools, both in the Metropolis and throughout the country, were substantial buildings—much better than the average of similar buildings. Certainly, they would have a much longer life than premises usually erected on 99 years' lease. The life of an ordinary house in the Metropolis was supposed to be about the term of the lease; but all these school buildings would last at least considerably more than a century. At the same time, he did not wish to suggest that loans should extend over such a long term as that; but, certainly, no reason had been shown why the term should be shortened in the manner proposed by the hon. Gentleman. The proposition was certainly a most shortsighted one, and it was a policy instigated by a feeling of opposition which had always existed in the minds of some to school boards and their work. They thought that the more expensive they made the work to the ratepayers the more unpopular the school boards would become with the ratepayers; and in that way they hoped to aid the denominational system, which had always had their consistent support. He did not apply this remark to the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), who was nothing, if not an economist. But in this case the economy was a very short-sighted one, for the certain result would be to increase the charge which
    1148
    he (Mr. Pell) and others thought was already too heavy. Under the circumstances, he (Mr. Chamberlain) hoped the Bill would not be allowed hastily to pass the second reading, for it was a measure that must seriously hamper educational work, and add seriously to the already heavy burdens of the ratepayers. He moved the rejection of the Bill.
    MR. RYLANDSseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and. at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. J. R. YORKEsupported the Bill, and said, he thought the facts which had come to the knowledge of the House would, to some extent, justify some jealousy of school board expenditure. The Metropolis was a fair specimen; and, so far from the large expenditure becoming reduced, it seemed to tend to indefinite increase. He was not specially actuated by regard for denominational schools; but he wanted the cheapest system, and he did not see why he should pay a much larger sum for the luxury of compulsion than it was necessary to pay for a voluntary school. The Bill would probably not increase the rates, and the scheme proposed in it had nothing of novelty to recommend it; it existed in Scotland, and the Scotch people, who had many admirable qualities, had one quality in particular—namely, that of looking narrowly after the way in which their money was spent. They preferred repayment in 30 years, and he was bound to believe that they had good reason for that preference. Further, he believed the Bill would prevent the repetition of cases like that of the Shaftesbury, for luxurious furniture would have to be renewed in less than 30 years. He did not, however, pretend that the Bill by itself would go very far; but it would do something to bring home to the present generation of ratepayers that if they would indulge in these educational luxuries they must pay the piper. It was not an isolated attack on the school board system, for the Bill was on all fours with the Bill of the Government for limiting to 30 years the loans of the local authorities from the Public Works Loan Commissioners.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, the Scotch Education Act had enabled school boards to borrow for 30 or 50 years, and, perhaps, the majority of loans were for a period not exceeding 30 years. He, himself, was in favour of that term as the maximum; because, apart from other reasons, he thought that the generation for which a school was provided was the generation on which the burden of erecting the school should fall. On looking at the Bill, he did not see that it was one which should meet with opposition from the House. No doubt, in some instances, money had been borrowed in Scotland for longer periods; but, in the general run of cases, it had been thought expedient that the term should not exceed 30 years. In a great many instances, school boards themselves proposed this. In favouring the proposal of the Bill, he must not be understood to be in any way opposing the operations of school boards. If hon. Gentlemen complained of school board expenditure, they should remember that it was the ratepayers who bore the burden, and appointed the school boards, and it rested, therefore, with them to correct any extravagance in the expenditure.
    MR. ROWLEY HILL, in opposing the Bill, said, its effect on the school district with which he was connected would be to make the school board rate 7d. in the pound instead of 5d.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the change proposed was an important one, and the House was entitled to hear the views of the Government from a Member connected, with either the Education Department or the Treasury, before it signified its assent to the principle of the Bill. In fact, the proposal hardly ought to have been made without the Education Department being represented in that House. He could not conceive for a moment that the Vice President, if he had been aware that a Bill was coming on affecting the position of school boards throughout the country, would have been absent from the discussion. The schools were not built so badly that they would last only for a generation; they would last for two or three generations at least, and it was, therefore, equitable that succeeding generations should contribute to the cost of the buildings while they lasted. It was really only the buildings that were in question, for the amount spent on the furniture was
    1150
    a ridiculously small part of the expenditure of school boards, as the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) would see, if he were to move for a Return. The House would remember that, 10 years ago, when the Act was passed, it was at first proposed that the loans should be for 30 years; but the matter was fully considered by Parliament in connection with the year of grace, during which building grants were allowed to be made to the managers of voluntary schools; and that year of grace was agreed to in consideration of the extension of the term of the loans from 30 to 50 years, so that if the shorter term were now imposed there would be a distinct breach of Parliamentary agreement. The inevitable effect of the Bill would be to increase the school board rates by throwing the cost of the buildings on the rates of 30 years instead of 60 years, and, by putting an unjust burden on one generation in respect of the buildings, to restrict either in that respect, or some other, the educational supply. The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire was candid. He avowed that he wished to stop school board expenditure, which he thought was too great. But if the House was asked to legislate on the supposition that school board expenditure was extravagant, it ought to have far more evidence before it than had been yet adduced. More facts ought to be brought forward. Even assuming that the London School Board had made one mistake in respect of a ship, that did not prove anything as to the school buildings on land; and it was not disputed that both in London and the country more schools were wanted and must be supplied, and it would not do to make it more difficult than before to provide those schools. That being so, was it prudent to make the rates heavier for 30 years, in order that for 20 years afterwards the ratepayers might escape contributing to the cost of the schools already built? The ratepaying population was not now in such a state of prosperity that it should be asked to repay faster than it had been accustomed to do, neither was the country in such a condition that it would cheerfully accept a present increase of rates for the benefit of posterity. He should have imagined that the Government, if it had been represented by any other Members than the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the

    1151
    Postmaster General, would have been anxious to oppose the Bill on that ground, if on no other. He trusted the House would not think of accepting the principle of such a Bill, on which, if the responsible Minister was present, he should ask the Government to give an opinion.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, in common with, in all probability, nearly every other hon. Member, had no idea the Bill would come on, or, no doubt, he would have been present. The order of Business had taken a somewhat unexpected turn, which fully accounted for his absence. Speaking for himself, and not on behalf of the Government, after hearing the arguments for and against the Bill, he thought there were strong reasons for supporting it. If it would add 1d. or 2d. in the pound to the school board rate, that would not in itself be a disadvantage, because it would call attention to the expenditure of the school boards, which was a subject which deserved, in his opinion, a very careful consideration on the part of the public. The excessive expenditure of the London School Board had recently been very ably brought under the notice of the House by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke), who had rendered valuable service by the exposure of the system which prevailed. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was not surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) deprecate this suggested improvement, nor was the right hon. Gentleman at all inconsistent in endeavouring to keep the ratepayers in blissful ignorance of the large additions being continually made to their already almost intolerable burdens; because he (Mr. J. Lowther) well remembered that when the Education Act was passing through Committee, in 1870, it was proposed that the school board rate in the Provinces should be levied and collected separately, and kept distinct from other rates, as was the case now in London, whereby the ratepayers were enabled to see how much of their money was being spent by the School Board; but that was resisted by the right hon. Gentleman, and the proposal negatived. It was now said that in the country there was no complaint of the expenditure of the school boards; but that was because London was the only
    1152
    place in which the ratepayers knew how much the school board rate was. ["Oh, oh!"] He declined to enter into the general question of school board work, further than to say he could not endorse the wholesale eulogy of some hon. Members opposite. This generation was expending money, and ought to pay it; another generation might not approve school board expenditure. The Bill was an improvement upon the present system, and as he had said, speaking for himself solely, he hoped it would soon pass into law.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in opposing the Bill, felt sure the Government could not have considered how the operation of the Bill would increase the burdens of ratepayers in connection with school boards, seeing that it would add £80,000 a-year, or 1 per cent, to those burdens. There had been about 1,200 loans of a sum total of £8,000,000, of which the greater part was borrowed by small places, and an inconsiderable proportion by London; and he did not see why districts which should borrow in future ought to be called upon to pay more than other districts which had already borrowed. He did not believe there had been, as a general rule, extravagance in the building of schools throughout the country. They had been substantially built, but real economy was shown in this. That object would not be obtained by the operation of the Bill, for it would be defeated by the erection of less substantial buildings, which would, in the long run, be far more costly in repairs and renewals than those which were now erected under the 50 years' loans. The case of the ship was a very exceptional case; and there was no allegation of extravagance in the school buildings of London, which were substantial, but no more so than was consistent with the truest economy, having regard to the continuous interests of the London ratepayers, whose property they were. To say the least, their cost compared favourably with the expenses of erecting the voluntary schools, which were assisted by Government grants. He hoped the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell) would not press his Bill further, in the absence of the responsible Ministers of the Government.
    MR. PELL, in supporting the second reading of the Bill, said, that by allow-

    1153
    ing his name to be put on its back, his only object was to promote economy, and not to discourage education. He contended that if local authorities had power to borrow money for a very lengthened time they were more likely to be led into extravagance than if the loans had to be repaid in a shorter period. Experience had proved that to be the fact; and it was, therefore, necessary to place some check on the large outlays incurred by school boards at the expense of a future generation. The old proverb, "Come lightly, go lightly," was true in that as in so many other cases. By assenting to the second reading of this Bill, they might make school boards more careful in incurring those obligations. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) had talked of their procuring peace with honour on "tick." It was to be feared that the House had too readily accepted the idea of promoting education on "tick," a very protracted "tick," too, which future generations would have to pay. They had no right to be generous with other people's money, especially with the money of a generation still unborn; and, therefore, he approved the reasonable provisions of the measure.
    MR. M'LARENconsidered that 30 years, and not 50, was a sufficiently long period for these loans to extend over. He thought that bodies, whether public or private, who were obliged to contract debts, should see their way to the payment of these debts within a reasonable period. No person in private life could get the loan of money for 30 years. Even in the case of Government drainage loans made on land, the terms of which had been carefully considered, it had been determined that they should be paid back in 22½ years. Yet they had allowed school boards to borrow for more than double that period. It was said that at the end of 30 years the generation then existing would get the benefit of the schools free of debt. But that generation would have a great deal to do for itself. The population would have increased 50 per cent, and would require to build additional schools. Besides, the schools now being built would by that time cost nearly as much in repairs as would almost be equivalent to the expense of erecting new buildings. It was said
    1154
    that the additional interest of these loans would come to 1 per cent annually; but even allowing that to be the case, 1 per cent upon the loan would not be 1 per cent upon the rate, for the loan would not be one-half of the other expenditure for school purposes. Under the whole circumstances, he thought that if hon. Members would look at the enormous sums that the large towns in particular were borrowing, they would see the necessity of discouraging them and every other community, whether great or small, from undertaking heavy burdens for these long periods. If they wanted to borrow money, they ought to make reasonable provision for paying off their debts in 30 years.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, this appeared to him not to be a very small question. But whether a small question or not, they ought not to read the Bill a second time without the opinion of the Government upon it. Considering the two Departments interested were the Education Department and the Treasury Department, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman connected with the Irish Government (Mr. J. Lowther) ought not to be deemed sufficient. It was improper that the debate should close before either the Secretary to the Treasury, or the Vice President of the Council, stated the Government's views upon it. The question of building grants to schools had been discussed thoroughly in Parliament when the Education Act was passed, and the decision of Parliament on the 11th July, 1870, was a compromise between the claims of the old and the new schools. The denominational schools were allowed a certain time within which they could obtain building grants, not originally contemplated by the Bill; and the new Board schools, which the localities were to be compelled to erect when school accommodation was deficient, were to be built with money borrowed from Government on easy terms for 50 years. If, before the Board schools, certified as necessary for the country, had got the loans sanctioned and been built, the House passed this Bill at the instance of the patrons of denominational schools, who had got all they wanted, and who desired to prevent the Board schools from obtaining what they needed, it would be a distinct breach of the agreement and compromise come to in 1870; and would cause great

    1155
    irritation on the part of those who had been parties to that compromise. He appealed to the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council to say whether the Government were prepared to support the Bill, and on what grounds.
    MR. A. M'ARTHUR, as a member of the first School Board of London, testified that that body had taken the greatest care and pains to select sites and build schools in the cheapest and best manner; and he believed that it had succeeded, on the whole, in executing that work, especially considering the unavoidably expensive character of many of the sites, as economically as it had been done in the country districts. He thought the passage of the Bill would be most unfair to the school boards throughout the country, and would be most damaging to the cause of education.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he did not think the House should come to a decision without the Government stating their opinion upon the Bill. He would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. BARRANseconded the Motion, remarking that the Bill had been unexpectedly sprung upon the House that afternoon. It would, undoubtedly, whatever the motives of its authors, retard the cause of education.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he was sorry he had not been present during the debate; but he had never expected the Bill would be reached. He had, however, come down to the House directly he heard it was under notice. From what he had heard, the debate seemed much ado about nothing. ["Oh, oh!"] The Bill simply proposed to substitute "30" in place of "50." In many cases, school board loans had been already contracted for 30 years only; and the Bill would make no difference whatever, as regarded the terms upon which loans had been already raised. The school accommodation throughout England was almost sufficient, with the exception of that of a few large towns. It was only in London, and some other large towns, with a constantly-increasing population, that the school boards would have to borrow money. If
    1156
    that was all that was proposed in the Bill now, how could hon. Members connect the proposal with any injury to the quantity or quality of the education given? The Bill proposed that in future any sums which were borrowed with the consent of the Education Department, in order to provide necessary school accommodation, should be repaid within 30 years, instead of 50. His hon. Friend, in fact, merely proposed to assimilate the borrowing power of school boards to that of other local authorities, for those bodies were the only public institutions which were not compelled to pay back loans in 30 years. No doubt, it would hit the present generation rather harder than the existing Act, but it was not a material difference; and as, in his judgment, the Bill would do no harm, he should, be prepared to vote in favour of the second reading.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council was under considerable misapprehension, when he said that other local authorities were compelled to pay back loans in 30 years. By far the larger amount of the loans made by the Public Works Loan Commission, under various Acts of Parliament, had been made for much longer periods than 30 years, the periods being 50, 60, and even 75 years in some cases. The noble Lord also was under a misapprehension when he said the Bill would not seriously affect the education in many parts of the Kingdom—
    And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING.
    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they do request, that this House will be pleased to communicate to their Lordships, Copies of the Reports from the Select Committee appointed by this House in the present Session and in the last Session on Parliamentary Reporting, together with the Minutes of Evidence, &c.

    JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. RAMSAY, Bill to provide for the appointment of Judicial Factors by Sheriff Courts in Scotland, ordered to he brought in by Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. BAXTER, Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, and Mr. DALRYMPLE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 257.]

    MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JAMES LOWTHER, Bill to amend the Law regulating Municipal Elections in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by JAMES LOWTHER and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 256.]
    House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—East Indian Railway (Redemption of Annuities)* (160); Petroleum Act (1871) Amendment* (161).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Considered—Third Reading—Army Discipline and Regulation (Commencement) * (157), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—LATEST TELEGRAM—VICTORY AT —ULUNDI—QUESTION.
LORD TRUROasked, If Her Majesty's Government had received any further intelligence from the Cape?
VISCOUNT BURY: My Lords, a very satisfactory telegram has been received at the War Office from Lord Chelmsford, dated July 6. I must mention that it is not yet perfect, as it is still passing through the station. The telegram is as follows:—
"TELEGRAM FROM MAJOR GENERAL THE HON. H. CLIFFORD TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR, WAR (ST. VINCENT, JULY 23, 1879):—
"JULY 6.
"Following received from Chelmsford:—'Cetywayo not having complied with my demands by noon yesterday, July 3, and having fired heavily on the troops at water, I returned the 114 cattle he had sent in, and ordered a reconnoissance to be made by the mounted force under Colonel Buller. This was effectually made, and caused the Zulu Army to advance and show itself. This morning a force under my command, consisting of the 2nd Division, under Major General Newdigate, numbering 1,870 Europeans, 530 Natives, and 8 guns, and the flying column under Brigadier General Wood, numbering 2,192 Europeans and 573 Natives, 4 guns, and 2 Gatlings, crossed the Umvolosi River at 6.15, and, marching in a hollow square, with the ammunition and intrenching tool carts and bearer company in its centre, reached an excellent position between Unodwengo and Ulundi about half-past eight. This had been observed by Colonel Buller the day before. Our fortified camp on the right bank of the Umvolosi was left with a garrison of about 900 Europeans, 250 Natives, and one Gatling gun, under Colonel Bellairs. Soon after half-past seven, the Zulu Army was seen leaving its bivouacs and advancing on every side. The engagement was shortly after commenced by the mounted men. By nine o'clock the attack was fully developed. At half-past nine the enemy wavered. The 17th Lancers, followed by the remainder of the mounted men, attacked them, and a general rout ensued. The prisoners state that Cetywayo was personally commanding, and had

1097
made all the arrangements himself, and that he witnessed the fight from Lickazi Kraal, and that 12 regiments took part in it. If so, 20,000 men attacked us. It is impossible to estimate with any correctness the loss of the enemy, owing to the extent of the country over which they attacked and retreated, but it could not have been less, I consider, than 1,000 killed. By noon Ulundi was in flames, and during the day all the military kraals of the Zulu Army and in the valley of the Umvolosi were destroyed. At 2 P.M. the return march to the camp of the column commenced. The behaviour of the troops under my command was extremely satisfactory. Their steadiness under a complete belt of fire was remarkable. The dash and enterprize of the mounted branches were all that could be wished, and the fire of the Artillery very good. A portion of the Zulu Forces approached our fortified camp, and at one time threatened to attack it. The Native Contingent forming a part of the garrison were sent out after the action, and assisted in pursuit. As I have fully accomplished the object for which I advanced, I consider I shall now be best carrying out Sir Garnet Wolseley's instructions by moving at once to Eulongamite, and thence towards Kamaguasa. I shall send back a portion of this force with, the empty waggons for supplies, which are now ready at Fort Marshall.
"'I beg to forward a list of casualties:—Killed.—2nd Division—Captain Wyatt-Edgell and Farrier Sergeant Taylor, 17th Lancers; Corporal Tompkinson and Private Coates, 58th Regiment; Private Kent, 94th Regiment; Trooper Sifona, Shepstone's Horse. Flying Column.—Corporal Carter, R.A.; Bugler J. Burnes, Private W. Dirdley, 13th Regiment; Private Floyd, 80th Regiment; Trooper Jones, K.N. (sic) Horse. Wounded.—2nd Division.—Dangerously—Troopers Jones and Charles "Waste, 17th Lancers; Privates H. Yalder and W. Bowner, 21st Regiment; Privates N. Fash, W. Stewart, and M. Marony, 58th Regiment; Private Muzazu, Shepstone's Horse. Severely—Major R. W. C. Winsloe, Privates Swadle, G. Brown, F. Fidler, and J. Daveny, 21st Regiment; Major W. D. Bond, Privates Catterell, H. Hawee, and W. Severett, 58th Regiment; Lieutenant H. C. Jenkins, 17th Lancers; Lieutenant A. B. Phipps, 1st Battalion 24th Regiment; Lieutenant G. E. Liebenrood and Sergeant Piper, 58th Regiment; Driver Breeman, R.A.; Hospital Bearer Mubique. Slightly—Lieutenant and Captain the Hon. R. S. G. Stapleton Cotton, Scots Guards; Lieutenant W. C. James, 2nd Dragoons; Lieutenant A. B. Milne, R.N.; Trooper J. Koyeau, 17th Lancers; Private Aly, 1st Battalion 24th Regiment; Private M. Murtah, 94th Regiment; Lieutenant Jenkins, Natal Native Contingent. Flying Column.—Dangerous—Lieutenant G. A. Pardoe, Private J. Davies, Mr. Shepstone, and Bugler M. Cockling, 13th Regiment; Gunner J. Morton, R.A.; Privates P. Tulley and W. Hunt, 80th Regiment; Trooper Leagdo, Mounted Basutos. Severely—Gunner W. Morshead, R.A.; Sergeant R. Wood, R.E.; Privates J. Bourne, H. Owens, C. Johnson, W. Heit, and J. Curing, 13th Regiment; Sergeant Onerill, Privates A. Beecroft and M. Duffy, 80th Regiment; Private J. Flood, 90th Regiment; Trooper P. Legos, Baker's Horse;
1098
Captain Hurber, Wood's Irregulars; Lieutenant Cowdell, Wood's Irregulars; Trooper Salein, Mounted Basutos. Slightly—Private P. Stokes, 13th Regiment.'"

ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION (COMMENCEMENT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived: Then Standing Orders Nos. XXXVII. and XXXVIII. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter past Two o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Four o'clock.