Sitting of 29 July 1879

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—James Lysaght Finnigan, esquire, for Ennis Borough.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Sugar Industries [No. 321].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—£2,500,000, Exchequer Bonds; CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES; Class VI.—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER OBJECTS; Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, SPECIAL, AND TEMPORARY SERVICES; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS; CIVIL SERVICES, Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—National School Teachers (Ireland) [Repayment of Advances] *; University Education (Ireland) (No. 2) [Fellowships, &c. Pensions, &c].
Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Copyright (No. 2) [265].
Ordered—First Reading—Irish Church Act (1869) Amendment [269]; Public Offices (Fees) * [266]; Lough Erne and River (Continuance) * [267]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* [268].
Second Reading—Committee—Report—Banking and Joint Stock Companies [126–264].
Select Committee—Special Report—Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 3) [No. 320].
Committee—Report—Municipal Elections (Ireland) [256].
Report—MedicalAct(1858) Amendment (No. 3)* [121]; Medical Act (1858) Amendment * [2]; Medical Appointments (Qualification) * [62]; Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 2) * [86].
Third Reading—Commissioners of Woods (Thames Piers) * [249], and passed.

QUESTIONS.
  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR— INCIDENCE OF EXPENSES.

    QUESTION.
    MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can inform the House in what proportion the cost of the Zulu War will be borne by the Exchequers of the United Kingdom and the Cape Colonies respectively; and, whether any estimate has been formed of the entire cost of the war up to the present time?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I have given Notice that on Thursday I propose, as the First Order of the Day, to move a Vote of
    1524
    Credit with reference to this War, and I shall then take an opportunity of making such a statement as I am enabled to make with regard to it.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES—SER GEANTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, after consulting with his colleagues as promised, he has been able to make any, and, if so, what improvement in the pensions and pay of the sergeant majors, staff and other sergeants of the Royal Marines, so as to place them upon an equality with those who hold similar rank in the Army; whether he will take into consideration the propriety of extending to the Royal Marines the advantages of the Warrant rank recently given to the Army; and, inasmuch as sergeants of the Royal Marines are called upon to provide drill instruction for Militia Regiments, whether he will take steps to throw open to them the appointment of Militia quartermaster?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the question of assimilating the pensions of the non-commissioned officers of Marines to those of the Army is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but I am unable to say whether it will be possible to communicate to the House before the end of the Session the result arrived at. With regard to pay, and to the question of placing the Marines on an equality with the Army, I can only say that the two Services differ on very many points in regard to which the advantages are by no means wholly with the Army; that it is not intended to apply to the Marines the same rank and pay that may, from time to time, be given to the Army, as it is not possible to place them on precisely similar conditions of service. The latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question is a matter for the War Department.

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL—10 GEO. IV. CAP. 7.

    QUESTION.
    MR. P. J. SMYTHasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If Section 16 of 10 George 4, c. 7, has been repealed; if not, to what extent, if any, the working of the University Education Bill

    1525
    might be affected by it; and, if, having regard to said Bill, it is his intention to introduce a Bill for the repeal of the Penal Clauses of the Catholic Emancipation Act?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): Sir, the section of the Catholic Emancipation Act referred to has not been absolutely or entirely repealed; but it has been largely qualified by subsequent legislation. Thus it has been expressly repealed as to the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham by 34 & 35 Vict., c. 25, s. 8, and is virtually repealed as to the University of Dublin (except as to the Divinity School) by 36 Vict., c. 21—known as Fawcett's Act. In my opinion, this section will not interfere with the working of the University proposed to be created by Charter under the provisions of the University Education Bill.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT—PASSENGER STEAMERS—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to a relation in the "Times" of July 24th of an accident resulting in the loss of life of a stoker named Weeks, of the passenger steamer "Albert Edward," plying between Folkestone and Boulogne, in the attempt to save a suicide; whether the means of rescue by boats are, in his opinion, adequate as regards the number of passengers licensed to be conveyed in the steamers crossing the Channel; and, whether he is satisfied that the condition of and means of lowering the boats in case of collision or other accident are such as they should be?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Sir, our attention has been drawn to the subject of the hon. Baronet's Question. An inquiry has been ordered by the Board of Trade into the circumstances of the melancholy loss of life on the occasion to which he refers, and until a Report has been received of that inquiry I should not like to pronounce an opinion upon the condition of the boats in the Channel steamers. With regard to the number of boats carried in each steamer, I think I answered a Question earlier in the Session, and I can only repeat what I then said—namely, that the Merchant Shipping Acts do not compel passenger ships to carry boats and rafts sufficient
  1526
  to accommodate the whole of their crews and passengers; that such a number of boats would seriously interfere with the management of the ship and even if they could be provided for on board ship it would be almost impossible to lower them in case of emergency. I may add that, as regards boats, their number and contents are settled by Statute according to the tonnage of the vessel.

  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS—DEWSBURY UNION.—QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he is aware of the large number of persons, consisting of batches of from forty to seventy at a time, against whom, in some cases previous convictions have been recorded, proceedings have lately been taken in the Dewsbury Union for not having had their children vaccinated; whether such proceedings are not contrary to the spirit of the instructions of the Local Government Board in the Letter of the 17th September 1875 to the Guardians of the Evesham Union, and in defiance also of a Resolution in the Minute Book of the Dewsbury Guardians; and, whether he will consider if the system of paying the vaccination officers by fees ought not to be put an end to, as affording undue encouragement to legal proceedings?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, I am aware that proceedings have been taken lately against a large number of persons in the Dewsbury Union for neglecting to cause their children to be vaccinated, and I fear they may have been encouraged in that course by those who are intrusted with the administration of the law. Proceedings are taken under three heads—1st, for a penalty for neglect to have the child vaccinated; 2nd, there may be a summons to show cause why an order should not be made for the vaccination; and, 3rd, there may be a summons for a penalty for non-compliance with the order. The vaccination officer has written to me, stating that in no single instance has he taken proceedings under the third head against a defaulter previously convicted under the first. That being so, his conduct has not been contrary to the instructions of the Local Government Board, nor to the spirit of the letter to the Evesham Guardians. No doubt, it is contrary

  1527
  to the resolution of the Dewsbury Guardians; but that resolution, as they have been informed, is illegal, and, in fact, a nullity. There seems to me no ground for putting an end to the system of payment of the vaccination officer by fees, which has been generally adopted and works well; nor is it found to encourage prosecutions. The fees are not regulated by the number of prosecutions, but by the number of cases of successful vaccination.

  INDIA—THE CIVIL SERVICE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. PLUNKETasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Government are prepared to take any action upon certain representations recently made to the Secretary of State for India, in favour of modifying the rules now in force, as to the preparation and presentation of Joint Memorials by members of the Civil Service of India?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, a letter containing certain proposals for the modification of these rules was handed to me by my hon. and learned Friend. It has been laid before the Secretary of State in Council, and it has been decided by them to send a despatch to India making certain suggestions on the subject for the consideration of the Government of India. Until they have had an opportunity of considering them, my hon. and learned Friend will understand that I am unwilling to go more into detail on the subject.

  GAS COMPANIES AND THE ELECTRIC LIGHTING—REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHADWICKasked the Chairman of Ways and Means, Whether, in any Private Bills passed this Session, the monopoly and powers of any gas companies in regard to gas have been extended to electric lighting, so as to give gas companies, in case of their undertaking being purchased by any public body, a claim to be paid for any such extra privilege or monopoly; and, whether he will Report to the House, before any such extension of monopoly rights are allowed in any Private Bill, whether opposed in Committee or otherwise.
  MR. RAIKES,in reply, said, that the Question was one of some importance with regard to the various measures which had been introduced in the House during the present Session by various public bodies, with the view of obtaining powers to use the electric light. As many as 35 such Bills had been introduced altogether during the present Session. It would be in the recollection of the House that a Select Committee was appointed to consider the question of lighting by electricity, and he stipulated with the promoters that in the event of their Bills being allowed to go forward all the clauses which related to electric lighting should be struck out; but that if the Committee reported in favour of such powers being given to the promoters of such undertakings, clauses to that effect should be introduced at a subsequent stage. The Committee having reported adversely to the extension of such powers to gas companies, those companies were not allowed to insert clauses relating to the electric light in any of the Bills promoted by them; but it had been open to corporations to adopt such clauses as might be found to correspond with the recommendations of the Committee, and in three or four cases they had done so. In no case, however, was power given to a gas company to make use of the electric light. With regard to the second part of the Question, he did not think it would be in accordance with precedent to make a formal Report to the House of the cases in which the extension was proposed; but, if he should continue to hold his present Office, he would not fail to mention the matter to the House if any such Bill came on for second reading.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—THE ABBEY PARISH BOARD, PAISLEY, AND SCHOOL FEES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, If he will state the grounds on which the Abbey Parish Board of Paisley refused to grant the usual order to pay the school fees for the children of a widow named Smith, said widow being at the time in receipt of parochial relief; and if he will object to furnish the Correspondence between the Board of Superintendence and Mr. Archibald Macdonald; between the Board of Su-

  1529
  perintendence and the Abbey Board; Copy of the Notes of Mr. M. M'Lean, the inspector, and of the signed declarations made to him, together with Copy of the letter by which the Board of Superintendence conveyed their decision to the Abbey Parish?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON): Sir, I made inquiries in regard to the refusal to pay the fees of these children, and, so far as I can judge, the decision of the parochial board was based on some questions that were raised in regard to the creed register. This point, as it seems to me, was raised somewhat unnecessarily. There was no need to decide the point at all, and, in so deciding it, it seems to me the Parochial Board overlooked the plain intention of the Legislature in passing the Education Act. Accordingly, I have communicated both with the Parochial Board of Paisley and with the Board of Supervision, requesting that the matter should be reconsidered. That being so, I think I need hardly produce the Papers.

  CYPRUS—THE PAPERS, No. 4.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the short series of Papers, Cyprus, No. 4, laid upon the Table in print on the 4th of July, and ordered to be delivered in full on the 5th of July, will be in the hands of Members; and, who is responsible for the delay which has occurred?
    MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, he had made inquiry at the Foreign Office, and had been informed that a series of Papers referred to by the hon. Baronet had not been delivered; but he would take care that they should be in the hands of Members in a day or two. The delay in issuing them was, no doubt, due to some inadvertences.

  PRIVILEGE—OMISSION FROM THE VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. CALLANwished to direct the attention of the House to a matter of Privilege in connection with the Sitting on Friday night and early on Saturday morning last. The Chairman of Committees was in the Chair on Friday night and up to half-past 2 o'clock on Saturday morning, when the Chair was
  1530
  taken by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt). On that occasion the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) was addressing to the House a very exhaustive speech with regard to savings' banks, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) directed the attention of the Chairman to the fact that 40 Members were not present. The Chairman having counted, and 40 Members having been found to be present, the Business went on as usual; but so anxious were the Government to report Progress that, interrupting the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, the Secretary to the Treasury took the most unusual course of moving "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." The glass was accordingly turned, the bells were rung, the doors were closed, and the Question again put to the Committee. At the request of some party—he believed, certainly, not at the request of the hon. Gentleman himself—two hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House were named as Tellers for the Government Motion; and, what seemed an unprecedented thing in the annals of the House, when the Division was taken it was found that the Secretary to the Treasury voted with five Cabinet Ministers against his own Motion. Attention was afterward drawn to the matter by the hon. and gallant Member for Water-ford (Major O'Gorman), who then stated that the hon. Gentleman who moved to report Progress voted against his own Motion. It was said that an indictment was being prepared against certain hon. Members for wilful and deliberate obstruction of the Business of the House, and one of the clauses in that indictment, it was believed, was to the effect that the hon. Member for Cavan had voted against a Motion which he had supported in his speeches, or something of that kind. It was, therefore, essential, as a safeguard, that it should be stated in the proceedings of the House that an official Member of the Government—the Secretary to the Treasury—proposed" That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," and within five minutes afterwards voted with the entire Government Bench against his own Motion. That, at all events, was a remarkable circumstance; but it was not all. The Motion to report Progress appeared in the proceedings of the night

  1531
  in question in the Parliamentary Votes, but without the name of the Secretary to the Treasury as Mover of it; and to that fact he wished particularly to direct the attention of the Speaker of the House. He had examined the Records of the House in the Library, and he could say that from the first week of the present Session up to the present day there had not been an omission of a single name from a Motion of the character of that moved by the Secretary to the Treasury. No similar case had been recorded this Session, and he wished it to be considered by the House that, whereas the name of Mr. Parnell had been inserted, the name of the Secretary to the Treasury had been left out from Motions with reference to reporting Progress. It might be that the omission was accidental; but if no correction was made there would be no opportunity for appealing to the Records of Parliament in case of an indictment for wilful obstruction being proceeded with. He did not bring this subject forward yesterday, because he had thought it better to wait and see whether the correction would be made in to-day's Votes. Seeing that that had not been done in the ordinary way, he now appealed to Mr. Speaker to see that the mistake was rectified. He thought he had fulfilled his duty in directing the attention of the House to the extraordinary omission, and he hoped the Clerk would be empowered to make the necessary correction.
  MR. SPEAKER: Until the hon. Member rose, I was not aware that the name of the Secretary to the Treasury had been accidentally omitted, as the hon. Member has stated, in the Votes delivered yesterday morning. It was, I am assured, a pure accident; and, having ascertained that the name was accidentally omitted, I have given directions that the sheet of the Votes containing the error should be cancelled, and that the proper entry be made in the Votes.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he thought it only right to say that he had called the attention of the Clerk to the matter that morning before public attention was directed to it, and he had undertaken to rectify it. As he was concerned in the matter, he wished to say a few words in regard to it. There was considerable confusion at the time when the Division was called, and when the hour-glass was
  1532
  turned in the interval which elapsed during the running of the sand he (Mr. Gray) and some other hon. Members suggested to the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) that two or three Votes which they believed were unopposed should be taken before Progress was reported. That hon. Gentleman, believing as he (Mr. Gray) believed, that those Votes would provoke no discussion or opposition, did not challenge the Vote when the Question was again put. Other hon. Members, however, did challenge the Motion, it being in the possession of the House, and it was that, and that alone, which he believed led to the confusion and the rather extraordinary scene which followed. He merely desired, as he had a small part in bringing about the confusion, to explain that it was a pure misunderstanding, for which neither the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury nor anybody else was to blame. That had nothing to do however with the real question as to the completeness of the Parliamentary Record. The Motion was made to the House, and, not being withdrawn, was in possession of the House, and a Division being demanded upon it the name of the proposer of the Motion was not given. He did not think that the explanation which the Speaker had received, that the matter was due to accident, was strictly accurate, because the name was omitted in two places—first, in the Journals of the House, and, secondly, in the Division Lists. He was inclined to believe that if the matter was still further investigated it would be found that the name was deliberately omitted because of the confusion which arose at the time the Motion was put.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, perhaps the House would allow him to explain what really seemed to be an extraordinary act on his part. He thanked the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) for the explanation he had just given, and which really constituted his excuse for the course he had taken on the occasion referred to. Hon. Members would recollect that when the discussion was going on, after he had moved to report Progress, a strong feeling was expressed that the Committee should proceed for a short time longer in order that certain Votes might be taken. In these circumstances, when the Motion

  1533
  was put by the Chairman, he did not challenge a Vote, because he believed it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee at the time that they should go on. One or two hon. Members did challenge a Division; and he took a course which, perhaps, he ought to have hesitated to take, and which, had he had a little time to think of it, he probably would not have taken. It was not the only instance, he believed, in which the same thing had been done; but if he had thought about it he would perhaps have come to the conclusion that he should be acting more wisely in not voting at all. He was sure the House would believe that he had no wish or desire that there should be any concealment in the matter. He was only too happy to hear from Mr. Speaker that an accidental error in the records of their proceedings, which might possibly mislead, would be rectified; and he trusted the House would believe that what he did was done with no wish or desire to confuse the Business of the House.
  MR. MONKsaid, he wished to make a personal explanation.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, if the hon. Member desired to make a personal explanation no doubt the House would hear him; but he must point out that any further discussion with no Motion before the House would be out of Order.
  MR. MONKwished to explain how he came to be named as a Teller. After the Secretary to the Treasury had moved to report Progress the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), who was then in the Chair, named the Government officials as Tellers for the Motion. Thereupon it appeared that objection was raised on the Treasury Bench to the Government Whips being Tellers, and the Chairman turned to the Clerks at the Table, at whose suggestion he (Mr. Monk) and the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) were named. Had Mr. Speaker been in the Chair on the occasion referred to, he (Mr. Monk) would have challenged his nomination as a Teller for the Motion.
  MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, that irregularities occurred in the best-regulated families; and, seeing that Her Majesty's Government, who were, or ought to be, a well-regulated family, had been guilty of an error, he hoped they would be charitable when private Members committed irregularities.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE WAR—NEWS PAPER CORRESPONDENTS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was now in his place, he would ask him the Question which stood first upon the Notice Paper—namely, Whether newspaper correspondents at the seat of war in South Africa are permitted to take an active part against the enemy, otherwise than in self-defence; and, whether the attempt to shoot a fugitive Zulu scout, which the special correspondent of the "Standard" records that he himself made, as may be seen in the "Standard" of July 17th, is a matter which calls for any notice from the War Office?
    COLONEL STANLEY: Sir, in reply, I beg to say that I conceive any officer who permitted a newspaper correspondent to take an active part against the enemy would act in a manner which I should characterize as unjustifiable. In reply to the second part of the Question, I have to say that I have looked at the paragraph referred to, and find that the corespondent states that he twice attempted to fire at a Zulu, but in neither case did his rifle go off; and it does not appear that he either hurt the Zulu, or even frightened him. If it were a general practice at the seat of war for persons not connected with the Service, and not on duty, to take an active part against the enemy, I should consider it my duty to address some communication to the General Officer; but as there is no evidence of the existence of the practice beyond that contained in the letters of the correspondent to whom attention has been drawn I do not intend to notice the matter further.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether in the constitution of the Royal Commission on Agricultural Distress, as it is expected that several landlords and tenant farmers will have places on the Commission, regard will be had to secure the presence on the Commission of some person or persons fairly representative of the views and interests of the agricultural labourers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, the question of having upon the Royal Commission on Agricultural Distress a representative of the views of the agricultural labourers had been under the consideration of the Government; but they did not see their way to overcoming the difficulties which presented themselves.
  MR. E. JENKINSsubsequently asked, with the view to prevent any misunderstanding, Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant that there was an objection to placing an agricultural labourer, or any person who represented that class, upon the Commission?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, several communications had been made to the Government with a view to have an agricultural labourer, or a person connected with agricultural labourers, upon the Commission. Those representations had been carefully considered, and it had not been found, possible to overcome the difficulties which suggested themselves to the mind of the Government.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked, Whether, if some other person, not an agricultural labourer, were suggested, the Government would consider the matter?
  [No reply was given to this Question.]

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering at an earlier stage a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Hackney, to say that on Thursday he would propose the Vote for the expenses of the Zulu War, whereas he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say on the previous day that he would not ask the House to pass the Vote on Thursday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not meant to state that he would ask the House to pass the Vote on Thursday, but only that he would lay the Estimate on the Table, and make a statement.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Is it the intention of the Government to take the Education Estimates as the First Order to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Yes.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: Might I ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will say when the Committee on the Irish University Bill will be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am not able at this moment to fix a day, and it will be impossible to do so this week.
  MR. RYLANDSwished to know when the Vote for the enlargement of the Reporters' Gallery would be taken?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsuggested that the hon. Gentleman should give Notice of his Question.
  In reply to Mr. PRICE,
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the Navy Estimates would be proceeded with on Thursday.

  PRIVILEGE—(TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE).

    PETITION.
    MR. SPENCER WALPOLE: Since I came into the House I have received from the Sergeant-at-Arms an envelope containing a Petition from Mr. John Sandilands Ward, who is now in the custody of the Sergeant. It contains, also, a letter addressed to myself, expressing the hope that, as I was Chairman of the Committee that tried the Breach of Privilege question, I should give the Petition my careful consideration, and that I should not consider it inconsistent with my duty to bring that Petition under the notice of the House. I have read the Petition over, and I find that there are certain things in it which ought to be considered. I find that the petitioner entirely submits himself to the House. He expresses his unfeigned sorrow and regret for what has occurred. Under these circumstances, Sir, I think it only right and proper to lay this Petition upon the Table of the House, and to move that it be printed and taken into consideration to-morrow, immediately after the assembling of the House.
    Motion agreed to.
    Petition to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [App. 1.]
    Petition to be taken into consideration To-morrow,

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BANKING AND JOINT STOCK COMPANIES BILL— [BILL 126.]
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)>
  BANKING AND JOINT STOCK COMPANIES BILL— [BILL 126.]

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [22nd July], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of tile Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that last week he, in common with several other hon. Members, opposed the second reading of the Bill. He and they did so because they believed that Scotland had been unfairly treated in connection with that measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had evidently thought it impossible to carry the Bill as originally proposed, and had, therefore, come down to the House with a proposal to the effect that Scotland and Ireland should be excluded from the provisions of the Bill. That was a proposal which was eminently unsatisfactory both to Scotch and Irish Members; but now that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided upon withdrawing the 8th clause, and to include Scotland and Ireland within the scope of the Bill, he, for his own part, should withdraw the opposition he had offered, and as he thoroughly approved of the principle of the Bill he should give it his hearty support.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that the declaration that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made when he moved the second reading, supplemented by the other declaration that Scotland should be put on an exact equality with England, was satisfactory so far as Scotland and Ireland were concerned; and he could only express his regret that the Government should ever have allowed themselves to be induced to introduce a clause which practically would have had the effect of turning all the Scotch business out of London. He regretted that
    1538
    the Government should have adopted such a course, he believed only in deference to a section of the banks in London, which, no doubt, had put strong pressure on the Government; because he believed it was recognized by the public in London that whatever might be the case as to Scotch banks in Scotland their advent to London had been very advantageous to the business of that City. He thought, however, that the Bill required some further consideration in the public interest before it was proceeded with. He believed that some great principles were involved in the passing of that measure, which was brought forward apparently in the interests of the public, but really in the interests of the shareholders of banks. What was the state of matters with which the Bill proposed to deal? They had many large banks which, by giving the assurance of unlimited liability on the part of the shareholders, had induced the public to put very great confidence in them; and, as a consequence, they had received from depositors and others very large sums of money. Now, in consequence of the great confidence which the public had placed in them, those banks had been able to pay very large dividends upon their capital. They had ranged from 10 to 20, and even more, per cent per annum, besides making large additions to the reserve funds. Well, a business which paid at that rate was not, as a rule, unattended with risk to its shareholders, and what was now proposed was this—that those banks which commenced with unlimited liability, and having secured the confidence of the public, having large deposits placed with them, could now turn round and limit the responsibility of their shareholders. Now, the grounds upon which that proposition was made were somewhat to this effect. The shareholders in unlimited banks—not only the City of Glasgow Bank, but others—had become aware that they were incurring considerable liability in being so; and it was alleged that men of substantial property would not now consent to be made shareholders with that undefined liability hanging over them. But surely it was a very great insult to the intelligence of men of business to suppose that up to that time—the time of the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank—those banks were not

    1539
    perfectly well aware of the very great responsibility which they incurred. Every business man must have known that he, as a shareholder, was responsible to the fullest extent of his means for the obligations of that bank. What really was now asked to be done by the Bill was to maintain the price of bank shares in the market. It was proposed by the Bill to relieve the responsibility of shareholders of unlimited banks, the consequence of which would be that the price of bank shares would be maintained in the market. As it was, the shareholders of these banks having raised the price to such an amount, a dividend of 15 percent, might be, would only return 5 per cent, or at the most 6, upon the market price. There were two cures for the present state of matters. It was quite true that business men and men of common sense would not hold bank shares, while they could sell them at such a price as would only bring the purchasers 4 or 5 per cent. They would reflect that if, instead of holding these shares on which they were getting 20 per cent, they could sell them at a corresponding price, and re-invest the money in some security on which they would get 4 or 5 per cent, and with no liability whatever, it would be much better for them. The price of bank shares had risen in the market. The expected higher dividend had been discounted, and the bank shares were now at their present high price, not so much for the dividend the shareholders had got, as for the dividend that they expected to get. If this Bill passed, they would have bank shares higher still in the market. The real difficulty which had occurred was this—that they put the price of bank shares too high in the market, and the Bill was introduced for maintaining that price. The remedy for the difficulty was that the price of bank shares should go down in the market to such a price as would pay their purchasers a dividend of about 6 or 8 per cent, in which case the shares would be purchased by men of substance, who would be willing to incur the amount of risk which would be entailed by a dividend of 6 or 8 per cent. With regard to the proposal as to reserved liability, he did not think that it would be found to be satisfactory in practice, or, indeed, practicable. The difficulty which arose was this. If they organized
    1540
    a limited or reserved liability bank with a capital consisting of £50 shares, and another £50 liability upon them; if the first £50 was called up, although the shareholders should have some reserve to meet their liabilities, the objection was that the remaining £50 was not available for the purposes of the bank until the bank suspended payment. It would be much better that the bank should be organized with a smaller amount of paid-up capital, so that the public could see how much uncalled capital there was, and that that uncalled capital should be available for the bank at the time of difficulty. He thought that, for the purposes of reserved liabilities, it was hardly worth wasting such a Bill; because he believed that if the public had an opportunity of organizing a bank with limited liabilities they would not do so, but would prefer a bank which would leave a proportion of the capital not called up in the manner he had suggested. There was, however, another question connected with the measure he wished to call attention to, and that was the privilege which was to be continued to unlimited banks which became limited or reserved of still maintaning their issue of notes. That was a point which created very considerable complications with regard to the Bill in carrying out the principle which was supposed to underlie its provisions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech had said that this Bill provided that the shareholders should, in addition to their reserved liability, be also responsible for the full payment of the notes in circulation to the general body of creditors of the bank. Now, he thought that introduced an abundant element of uncertainty in regard to the shareholders. It might be quite true that the reserved liability was united to a certain amount, when there was no issue of notes; but when there was an issue of notes the shareholder could not possibly learn the amount of his liability. It seemed to him that the clear and broad principle to lay down with regard to the note issue would be that if an unlimited bank became limited, by the fact of its doing so it should lose altogether its right to a note issue. If that principle were not adopted in the Bill, the effect of it would be to still further augment the privileges and increase the monopoly

    1541
    of banks. The Scotch tankers and the monopoly they possessed had been very frequently alluded to in the course of the debate; but, up to recently, that monopoly had not been complained of to any very great extent. But he thought he was expressing what was becoming a general opinion in Scotland, to the effect that Scotch banks were beginning to exercise their monopoly to an extent which was injurious to the trade in Scotland. One particular complaint which the people had as to the Scotch banks coming to London was that the Scotch banks were receiving deposits all over Scotland, that they brought the money to London, and actually lent it there on the Stock Exchange, or at discount, at a much lower rate of interest than they would have charged in exactly similar transactions in Scotland. He considered that that was a point which was deserving of the consideration of the House; because, until the note issue was taken away from the Scotch banks, it would be hopeless to attempt to institute any new bank in Scotland to compete successfully with the present monopoly. He should wish further to call the attention of the House to the State policy in regard to the note issue. The question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), when a Bill was introduced on the subject in 1875. In the discussion on that Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) said—
    "Sir Robert Peel proceeded steadily on the principle that where the law proposed restrictions on issuing banks, these restrictions ought to be maintained; and, moreover, Sir Robert Peel did that with reference to a wider principle still—namely, that the State ought ultimately to get into its own hands the whole business of issue, and that that course ought to be taken upon the first favourable opportunity."—[3 Hansard, ccxxii. 1985.]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer, rising afterwards, said—
    "I believe this to be the truth, of the case—that as far as England at least was concerned, Sir Robert Peel looked forward to the time when the provincial issue should be absorbed, and come into the hands of the Bank of England as the agent of the State."—[Ibid. 2020.]
    He thought, therefore, that the present would be a favourable opportunity for providing in the measure now before the House that any unlimited issuing bank which availed itself of the powers
    1542
    of the Bill, and became limited, should lose altogether its right of issuing notes. It appeared to him that the present was a favourable opportunity for the State to demand of those banks of issue which availed themselves of the advantages of that Bill that they should abandon altogether the right of issuing notes. Then, as regarded the provisions of the Bill as to notes, they seemed to him to be altogether unsatisfactory. According to the last Acts—namely, the Companies Acts of 1862 and 1867—notice of an intended change had to be sent to every special creditor of the company which converted. itself into a limited liability company. But banks which intended to convert their liability into that of a limited character would immediately take the opportunity of changing the deposit receipts; so that a creditor, without being aware of the fact, would find that he was only a creditor from the date of his new deposit receipt. For all these reasons, he should support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the whole subject was one of extreme complication, and it was so because the interests affected were distinct ones, and had been erroneously connected when they were absolutely and entirely different. Banks performed two functions, one the Imperial function of issuing notes, and the other the legitimate business of banking, and the only remedy for the evils which attended the present system was for the Government to assume for the State at the earliest opportunity the absolute exercise of the Imperial function of issuing notes, a step which need not involve any injustice to issuing banks. Why was the Bill introduced? What had been the provoking causes of this proposed legislation except the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank? Barring that failure there was nothing in the world to disturb the confidence of shareholders or depositors—nothing but that failure, which had opened a vista of the possible failures of other banks. But what was the case with many of the other banks? They were asked to permit them to diminish their liability; but in whose behalf was that request made? It was a petition on behalf of the banks. On whose side ought the House to consider it. He thought it ought to be on the side of the depositors, who were as 100

    1543
    to I compared with the shareholders, while much more depended on the money put into the bank than on the capital subscribed. For himself, he had no faith in subscribed capital; while the capital of a bank ought to be in proportion to the amount of business done. Then, with regard to audit, he had no great faith in periodical audits; but he had faith in a true candid statement made in a shape that the public could understand. Nothing was more unsatisfactory and more calculated to mislead than the way in which many of the banks presented their accounts at present, for they mixed up "cash" with "money on call" and with "convertible securities," essentially different things. He believed a great deal might be done hereafter with regard to putting banks under an obligation to make their accounts more straightforward and satisfactory. If the House legislated for the purpose of the present measure they legislated in a panic, and without due consideration of the subject; and it was impossible to deal with the subject properly as long as the operations of issuing and banking were conducted for the advantage of the same bank, because, for mere banking, the most absolute liberty was required, and the issue of paper money was a function which ought to be exercised for the State alone. He thought the Government would find, in the fact of the many objections to the measure, that they could hardly expect to pass such a Bill, and he suggested that they should leave the subject to another Session and deal with it in a larger and more comprehensive manner.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONagreed that this was a panic measure, and nobody could doubt that the panic had resulted from the unfortunate case of the City of Glasgow Bank, a case which was different in its circumstances from many of its English compeers. Although the House of Lords had now decided the contrary, yet there was good ground for believing that the position of trustees who happened to be shareholders in the Scotch banks was, by an Act of Parliament, somewhat more favourable than that which they were known to occupy in respect of the English banks, and a very large number of gentlemen had been caught in the toils of that litigation, and had been ruined. They thought the terms in which they had actually
    1544
    registered as shareholders in that bank freed them from any personal liability, and that the liability attached to the estate which they represented and not to themselves. That created, very naturally, great alarm, and a great amount of suffering, and then the London unlimited banks began to perceive that the moment there was panic there was a great rush to get rid of shares. The natural tendency of this was, of course, that weak holders took the place of strong holders, because the person who, under the circumstances, would take a share in an unlimited bank was a person who had nothing to lose but the interest in that particular investment; and, no doubt, there had been a tendency in that direction. He believed that to some such circumstance as that the great pressure, which it was notorious had been put upon the Government, was to be attributed. As far as allowing an unlimited bank to become a limited bank, if it was so minded, he, for his own part, saw no objection. The Act of 1862 gave that power; but the banks then were far too proud of their credit and position to condescend to take advantage of it. It was not on that account that he ventured to submit there was an objection to their Bill, and that the matter required to be further considered. He understood that it was quite settled that Clause 8 should be omitted; but he did not know how far Clause 9 was to remain in the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We retain that clause.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, it became important that he should call the attention of the House to the great difficulty which resulted from the retention of that clause. They had at present limited and unlimited companies, and companies incorporated by Act of Parliament and incorporated by Royal Charter, and that was, surely, enough. But the Bill proposed to create a kind of Joint Stock Companies. The banks reserved liability, and he understood that the necessity for this legislation resulted from one circumstance only—namely, that there were a large number of banks with unlimited liability who had paid up the whole of their share capital, and, inasmuch as there was no reserve or share subscribed capital, the directors did not see their way to persuade the shareholders to increase their subscrip-

    1545
    tions, without which they could not get credit on the footing of being registered as an unlimited company. The Government stepped in to help them, and proposed a new category of Joint Stock Companies to meet that particular emergency or difficulty—that was to say, they proposed a class of banks where the liability should arise, not while the bank was a trading concern, but the moment it came into liquidation. In other words, they did not propose to intrust directors with the power of calling up the reserve from the shareholders for the purpose of trading; but they kept it as a fund to which the creditors might look in the event of the company eventually coming into liquidation. At first sight, there did not seem to be a great deal of harm in that; but what he wanted to point out to the Government was this—How many banks were there in that position? What was the necessity for any change in their companies' laws? Unless the necessity had been clearly proved, it seemed to him that there was the strongest possible reason why the Government should not call into existence a new class of companies with new incidences. With every new institution, possessing new rights, rose up a vested interest which made it more difficult hereafter to legislate in regard to the whole subject upon a broad and comprehensive principle. He would submit to the Government whether it was worth while to put on the Statute Book this year an Act which would create two distinct classes of new companies, and add confusion to the existing state of confusion in regard to their Joint Stock Companies' law? He hoped that the Government would be satisfied with the fair discussion which had taken place, and defer legislation till next Session, when the subject might be more satisfactorily grappled with as a whole.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISthought there was something peculiar in this chorus of opposition, arising from the particular quarter from which it came. He was surprised at the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), who had referred to the 9th section as introducing a new series of complications. Now, considering the distinguished position which his hon. and learned Friend occupied, both in the House and elsewhere, he was the last person from whom he
    1546
    should have expected to hear that observation. If he had looked out the first two lines of the section, he would have seen a reference to the clause in the Companies Act of 1862, which in another form did the very same thing but imperfectly. If the Bill were liable to the charge brought against it by the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) in two particulars, it certainly would not deserve the support of that House. That hon. Member objected, in the first place, that the measure was not in the interest of the public; and, in the second place, that it altered the liability of present shareholders to their existing creditors, and that by some peculiar process, which, no doubt, he understood himself, it was likely to keep up and even to increase the price of bank shares. But was not this a public question? They could not go on without banks any more than they could without Water Companies and Gas Companies. They were a part of the necessities of business life, and anything which put their relations towards the public in a better, a more solid, enduring, and healthy condition was worthy of the consideration of the Legislature. The experience they had had in this matter had been narrowed to the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank; but it had been forgotten that since then a very considerable English bank had failed, and spread disaster right and left to such an extent as to create a second panic in England. The public had got to look to the healthy condition of the joint-stock banking system, as a part of the great business of commercial life in this country; and the present condition of affairs was such that but for the probability of this Bill becoming law there would have been a general stampede of all the men of fortune, and property, and of common sense from the unlimited banks, because no man who desired to sleep comfortably in his bed, or make a will for the benefit of his family, would consent to remain under such liability as existed at the present moment. It could not be said that that was a state of things beneficial to the public. He maintained that the question was a public one. The hon. Member for Forfarshire could not have read the Bills and Banks Act, for it was as plain as the way to the parish church that the liability at present existing on the part of the banks could not be

    1547
    affected by this Bill. Therefore, they were doing no such outrageous thing as narrowing the liberty of existing shareholders. The Act of 1862 had not been taken advantage of by the banks on account of its cumbrous machinery. By that Act the banks were compelled to give individual notice to the depositors of their intention to change from unlimited to limited liability, which would operate most prejudicially to all concerned; whilst the present Bill enabled the directors to make the change by publishing notice of their intention in the public newspapers and in The Gazette. The suggestion that the operation of the Bill would be to increase the value of shares, and that in that way small investors would be tempted to seek larger dividends, was not consistent with the avowed object of the Bill to encourage richer men to allow their capital to remain in banking concerns. The House was not considering the Bill in a panic, but under the pressure of demands deliberately made in such a way as to render it the duty of the Government to throw upon the House the responsibility of rejecting a measure for the relief, not of shareholders only, but equally of depositors and of the whole banking community. No doubt it would have been satisfactory it there had been time to send the Bill to a Select Committee, in order that it might be considered whether the object could be attained without creating another class of banks; but, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he trusted the House would be loyal to the principle of the Bill, which up to that time had been received with general assent, and not only pass it through Committee, but secure its becoming law without any further waste of time.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKbegged to say that he was rather vexed that this Bill should be brought forward at the present time. He would have preferred a measure that could have been more maturely considered, and that greater time could have been allowed to work out this important question. He was sorry, after what they had heard, that this Bill should be pushed forward. In Scotland, it was said, the banks had a great monopoly, and that they exercised their power over the public as they liked. They charged what rate of interest they pleased, and the public were, practically, helpless in their hands. It was a serious
    1548
    accusation for a Scotch Member to put before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a galling monopoly in Scotland, which could not be touched. There was no monopoly so great as this bank monopoly, and there was no question at all that it was a very serious thing that this state of affairs should exist; but still he was sorry, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had undertaken to legislate on banking, that he had not done what he proposed at the beginning. Some people from Scotland would not let the Bill pass unless they got their way, and others unless they got theirs; and it seemed to him that the Bill would dwindle down to a very small thing on limited liability. They were legislating, as it seemed to him, entirely on behalf of banks, and were neglecting those who were depositors in those banks; and he confessed he did not like that people should run away with the idea that Parliament was endeavouring to save those who were bankers, and leaving those who were depositors in their unprotectedness. A banking company was simply a commercial company, intended to make money for the shareholders. Why should Parliament continually throw around them the mantle of protection? Why should they not be subject to the same rules as other commercial establishments? What about private banks, of which there had been more failures than of public banks? The Scotch wanted monopoly at home and liberty in England; the English wanted a fair field and no favour. Let there be but one denomination of banks, and let them all be under one law. Above all things, they ought to consider the confiding public, whose trust was wonderful and astonishing, and who ought not to be deceived by names and distinctions they could not understand. He did not want to oppose the second reading of the Bill exactly, because it was right to give some consideration to those who had enormous risk on their shoulders; at the same time, he could not say he approved of the Bill.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, it would be wise to pass the Bill this Session, because he feared that if the question of allowing unlimited banks to become limited were not dealt with until the question of issue was considered, the day would be far distant

    1549
    when liability could be limited. He was a Member of the Committee on Banks of Issue, and he remembered that the Committee was flooded with schemes on the currency question. That was a subject it would take a very strong Government to deal with, and he did not believe that in Scotland they wished to have it dealt with. The sympathy of some hon. Members was confined to depositors; he thought some consideration should be shown to shareholders also; and he would, therefore, be very glad to see the Bill, with certain modifications, passed. He hoped the House would have a statement from the Government as to what portions of the Bill they meant to retain, and what to abandon; and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would see his way to allow banks, simply by advertising in The Gazette and in certain newspapers, to make the change from unlimited to limited liability, instead of requiring them to write "Limited" on their doors. A good deal had been said about the monopoly of Scotch banking. He did not believe there was any such monopoly, and he was quite sure that Scotch banks had been a great advantage to the country. He believed there were over 600 branches scattered all over Scotland, every small village almost having its branch bank, and that had been of untold advantage to the people; and there could be no doubt that every person who could give reasonable security would have the necessary facilities afforded him by every banker. He hoped the clause as to auditing would be kept in the Bill. He believed that a system of auditing and a particular form of accounts would prove a great advantage both to the banks and their customers. If, in the case of the City of Glasgow Bank, there had been auditors chosen by the shareholders, and a proper supervision by accountants, the organized fraud of directors and officials of that bank would not have occurred. He did hope the House would agree to pass the second reading of the Bill; and he hoped some Member of the Government would show exactly how the Bill would stand if it did pass, and what alterations would be made in it in Committee.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEcordially supported the Bill, observing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a task of the greatest difficulty in legis-
    1550
    lating for the shareholders of a bank, and, at the same time, doing it in such a way as not to injure the interests of depositors. He looked upon the position of banks as peculiar. The capital of those in Scotland was only about £10,000,000, while the deposits were £80,000,000; and he did not see what harm could arise to these banks if they were only limited to their shares. There were several banks in Scotland of limited liability, which had maintained themselves side by side with unlimited banks, and with great success. He considered that the two interests were not irreconcilable, and if they could obtain equal security as before for depositors, it would be for the public interest that the liability of the shareholders should be defined. For his part, he shared the expectation that this measure would induce persons of responsibility and position to come forward in the management of those banks more readily than they had hitherto done, and thus give some security for good management. This was what they must mainly look to for the security of shareholders, apart from the vigilance of the shareholders themselves. No doubt, there might be a good deal of difficulty in the transition; but it could be got over. The point on which the Bill had been attacked by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry Jackson) was a great merit. It was owing to a panic that it had been introduced; but the very circumstance that there was a panic justified the Government in coming forward. If nothing was done, a shock would be given to many concerns which they could not easily weather; and, therefore, it was in the interest of depositors as well as shareholders that there should be legislation in the matter. He was anxious, however, to press on the Government and the House that legislation ought not to stop there. The Scottish banking system was not a monopoly, as had been stated popularly in conversation. There was no legal restriction in the establishment of any bank; but there was a social restriction, inasmuch as no bank had any chance of being established in Scotland that had not the power of note issue. It was now about 15 years since endeavours were made to find a remedy for this, by allowing all banks to be established on the ground that they should deposit gold in respect to every note that was issued. The pro-

    1551
    posal met with little support from Scotch Members. However, in the absence of such a scheme, he would be glad to see facilities given for the establishment of banks where the public would have some security for the solvency of the notes that were issued, and where, at the same time, a degree of freedom would be given that was now wanting to the banking transactions of the country. If they were to wait until all issue banks were swallowed up, they would have to wait two or three hundred years. If care were taken to satisfy the public as to the convertibility of the notes, that was all that would be wanted. He did not think that Scotland laboured under any very serious evil owing to the present limitation of banks. Though they had come down from 30 or 40 banks some 20 years ago to 10 or 12 now, there was a sufficient number to satisfy the wants of the public. The grounds for legislation was, therefore, not extortion from the existing banks, but the danger arising from the whole circulation and business arrangements being thrown on a limited number of banks, so that it was impossible to fill up a gap when a great failure occurred. Perhaps some such suggestion might find more favour, if the Government would clear their heads of the notion that there was some great profit to be made out of the circulation. It had been contended that the privilege of issue should be enjoyed by the State alone; but the amount of profit on the whole was so small as to be scarcely worth considering. The whole note circulation of Scotland was scarcely more than £3,000,000, and the whole profit of that would not amount to more than £80,000 or £90,000. That was not a matter which it would be necessary to entertain; but he thought that in any steps they took there should be full security for the interests of the public, and the freedom of banking throughout the whole country.
    MR. ALDERMAN COTTONsaid, that as this Bill embraced Joint Stock Companies as banks, and as it was received with almost universal approbation, he hoped the House would allow the second reading. Those banks which availed themselves of reserved liability did so at their own risk, and would have to notify the same to the public. With regard to the shareholders, there was no doubt that they ought to have protec-
    1552
    tion as well as the general public. As far as the City of Glasgow Bank was concerned, there was not a shareholder there who was aware of the enormous liability to which he was subject when the bank went down. He believed that the passing of this Bill would give confidence to the public mind, that it would reflect credit on the Government, and that it would allay a great deal of outside alarm.
    MR. MUNTZsaid, that the discussion which had taken place had shown the great difficulty of the question, and how dangerous it was to interfere with institutions of this kind. They were told that certain clauses were to be inserted in, and others taken out, of the Bill, so that they hardly knew what the nature of the measure was. He could see no reason why banks should not be allowed to register as limited banks, if they objected to the great responsibility of being unlimited. The object of the Act of 1826 originally was to give an unquestionable and unlimited security to depositors; but now they were told that the interests of the depositors were quite a secondary consideration, and that the object of the measure was merely to protect the shareholders of unlimited banks. The first object of the Bill was to allay the panic which grew out of the failure last autumn. If they were to legislate, they ought to legislate so as to meet the requirements of the unlimited banks that desired to escape from their responsibility; but they ought, at the same time, to protect the depositors, who, in his judgment, were not protected by this Bill. If the Government wished to pass the measure simply in order to give a limited liability to the unlimited banks with ample security to the public, he should be glad to vote for the second reading. But nothing could be more unfair than to allow people to get rid of their liability to depositors, without acknowledging it openly by the adoption of the title "limited;" and if it were the object of the Bill to enable London banks, under the new-fangled name of "reserved liability," to get rid of their liability, while they were ashamed to own it, there would be a fraud committed on the public, and the Bill ought not to pass. The clause had now been withdrawn. The Government had better withdraw the whole of the Bill, excepting the part of it which enabled un-

    1553
    limited liability banks to take steps for making themselves limited. He could not vote for the second reading of the Bill, unless it was curtailed in some such manner.
    MR. BARINGthought he went further in opposition to this measure than almost any Member who had spoken on this subject. As he understood the principle of the Bill, it was a measure to make it more easy for laymen and lay women to do the business of bankers, merchants, and traders, without knowledge, skill, labour, or risk; but there must be risk, and so it had to be put on somebody else. The Bill, therefore, was a Bill to relieve the shareholders and directors of a responsibility which they had assumed of their own free will, at the expense of depositors and creditors. Now, that was a very serious extension of a system of the working of which he had not a very high opinion, so far as it had hitherto gone. He did not assert that this Bill was a piece of panic legislation; but it certainly was introduced in consequence of panic, and in order to avoid, if possible, fresh returns of panic. He did not feel sure that they were entirely free from signs of panic at present. When they saw money at 1 per cent it was a sign that people were afraid to employ their money in anything that involved risk. He did not think they were in a safe position to proceed with legislation which would shake the credit of the country, and he believed the passing of this Bill would damage that credit. If hon. Members looked at the position of the City of Glasgow Bank before its stoppage they would find that, according to its reports, there was hardly a bank in the country in a better position. Its whole capital was paid up, and it was stated to have 45 per cent in reserve. Could anybody say to him that there would have been the slightest difference in the position of that bank had it been a bank of limited liability? Would there not have been the same difficulty to shareholders and depositors—to the persons who had their money in, and who trusted the bank? Persons in London who trusted that bank would have lost their money, although they had given it on the faith of a return issued by directors believed to be honourable, responsible, and well-to-do men. They were told, that if this Bill
    1554
    were passed there would be better and more responsible shareholders. But were they so sure of that where there was limited liability? Was it not the fact that they did not under such a system get men who understood the banking business? The whole joint-stock business was rotten from top to bottom. The system worked upon was simply this—A bank was started. It was desirable, in order to make large profits, to call up as small an amount of capital as possible; but, in order to give confidence, there must be a large amount of capital subscribed. The larger their deposits were, in proportion to their called-up capital, so much the larger would be their dividends on the money invested. That was one false principle. Another false principle was that these banks allowed interest to depositors, and, in order to do so, were obliged to employ their money in more risky underakings than those on which the old-fashioned unlimited liability banks employed their capital; and there they got to the bottom of the City of Glasgow Bank difficulty. They took risks, in order to pay 15 per cent, that no bank not paying interest would have dared to take. There was a further evil. Shareholders were induced to put into shares money out of proportion to their capital, so that, when a call came, many had no money to meet it. He maintained that it would make no difference to many of these banks whether they remained as at present or were limited, without providing for the cutting down of nominal capital. But even supposing this Bill enabled them to obtain a respectable class of directors for banks they would generally have a managing director. Now, a man who dealt with his own money would naturally take more care than one who dealt with the money of other people. He would know that if he failed his fortune was gone altogether. But a managing director of a bank might ruin the shareholders and the creditors, and might be appointed to manage some other concern if he had shown himself to be very clever. He would mention another point. A great many banks had lately been doing business in accepting bills on shipments to foreign countries, and against shipments from foreign countries. Where the banks had a large capital those bills were taken in London and in the Con-

    1555
    tinental market very freely. But supposing those banks, to protect themselves, became limited, would there not be a great deal of inquiry and distrust aroused? If the directors and shareholders were so very anxious to become limited this year, did it not seem natural to suppose it was because they thought that something unpleasant was going to happen this year? Therefore, if the directors of a bank now proposed to make their bank limited, they would be raising against themselves a disagreeable amount of inquiry. And this might produce exactly what they were trying to avoid—a panic. With regard to the 8th clause, he could only echo what had been said by the right hon. Member for London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard). He thought that what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If the Scotch banks came to London, the English banks ought to have equal advantages. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) said that by the Act of Union England and Scotland were to be treated as one country. Let that be carried out and England would be satisfied. The 8th clause was left out to please the smaller country. It ought to be reinstated to please the larger country.
    MR. RAMSAYfelt that if this Bill had been introduced to allay panic there was good reason that, now it had produced all the good it was likely to do, the Government should rest satisfied and withdraw it. If it was was not withdrawn, they should deal with this subject on some principle which the House could understand, and which might benefit the public. The truth was, that the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank and the West of England Bank, and the rumours regarding other unlimited banks had created throughout the country a desire on the part of shareholders to have their liability limited; and he had no doubt, if the Government had confined their Bill to enabling unlimited companies to become limited under prescribed conditions, there would have been no such discussions as those to which this Bill had been subjected, and such a measure could have been retained. If the measure was not to be so limited, he thought the Government should not, at all events, seek to create distinction between the classes of banks by maintain-
    1556
    ing the 4th clause, which provided for the formation of banks of reserved liability. He could not, indeed, conceive in what way it would be possible to distinguish between the limited liability of banks which were in existence, and the reserved liability of banks to be formed under the Bill. In the one case, the liabilities must be determined according to some multiple of their capital. In the other case, it was in the same way a multiple of a prescribed capital, for which the shareholders in a limited company were liable, and there was no real distinction between the two cases. If the Bill should go into Committee, he would propose to strike out the 4th clause altogether, and thus refuse to sanction the reserved liability provision. In reply to the hon. Member for North Lanark (Sir Edward Colebrooke), he would say that if the business of banking in Scotland were restricted by legislation, surely that made it a monopoly. A bank could not be carried on in Scotland according to the mode in vogue there without the right of issue. That mode had been a great advantage, and ought to be continued, unless it could be shown to be detrimental to the State. Some hon. Members who preceded him endeavoured to show that the Government should take the whole right of issue and circulation into their own hands, and make it a source of profit. But by what means was the State to benefit, if it benefited at the expense of the population of the Kingdom? He did not know what the State meant, if it did not include the whole of the Kingdom; and what would the State benefit by taking from the present banks the right of issue, by means of which they conferred advantage on the population? So far from acting on this idea, the Government ought to regard the promissory note for 20 s. as the same as the note for £100. He deprecated the perpetuation of the system of monopoly. He deprecated the provisions of the Bill, which proposed to increase the classes of banks. It would be an advantage if they were all placed under the same category. He did not admit that there could be any advantage to the country derived from limited liability in commercial concerns. He protested against limited liability anywhere; but the Legislature, having recognized it, would do well to confine this Bill to the clauses that provided that

    1557
    an unlimited company might be made a limited company, notwithstanding the restrictions placed upon it by the Act of 1862. He thought that if that were done the Bill might be of use. Whether it would be an advantage to the State to have that limited liability was another question; but, seeing that the State had recognized limited liability in other trading and mercantile concerns, there was no reason why it should not be applied to banks. He quite recognized that the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank was not caused by ignorance on the part of those who administered the affairs of that establishment, but by the fraudulent practices the directors and officials indulged in. They could not, however, protect shareholders from fraud on the part of the directing and managing body. Any attempt to do so would fail. He did not object to that part of the Bill which provided for the audit of the accounts of limited liability banks. He believed it could do no good, but it could do no harm. He did protest, however, against the time of the House being occupied in the discussion of a measure which was not urgently called for by any section of the community; and he was of opinion that the Government should delay the Bill, and all discussion in regard to it, until they could deal with the subject of banking as a whole, and place it in a position satisfactory to the country. He hoped the Government, therefore, would not press the measure this Session.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) had given, the Government two pieces of advice which were hardly consistent with each other. In the first place, he advised the Government to drop the Bill altogether; and, in the second, that they should only retain the clause of the measure which would enable unlimited banking companies to convert themselves into limited ones. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member that it would be unwise of the Government to attempt to deal, during the present Session, with more than the clause by which it was proposed to empower the unlimited banks to come to an agreement with their creditors by which their liabilities should be restricted. It was too late in the Session for the Government to attempt to bring in a complete measure dealing with the whole law relating to
    1558
    banking; and he desired to point out to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite that one or two proposals in their Bill would certainly excite discussion—not to say opposition—if they were pressed. For instance, the proposal of the Government to enable banks of reserved liability to be established was looked upon in the district with which he was more directly connected with more wonder than approval. Everybody understood what a limited and what an unlimited liability meant; but no one exactly comprehended what was meant by banks of reserved liability. Then, again, although there might be much to be said on the question of issue between Scotch and English banks, that was a large and difficult question which might fairly be put off till another Session. He, however, was far from thinking that it was desirable that no measure whatever on this subject should be passed. He had listened with interest to the able speech of the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring), who had so much experience on this subject; but one remark which fell from that hon. Gentleman had surprised him more than anything he ever heard. The hon. Member had said there was no difference between the position of the shareholders in unlimited banks and of those in limited banks; and he had pointed, in illustration, to a bank with which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) happened to be connected. That was a limited bank, and knowing that his liability was restricted to five times the amount of his share, he felt that his position was immensely different to what it would be if every penny he had in the world was at stake. For the hon. Member, with the facts of the City of Glasgow Bank failure staring him in the face, to say there was no difference between limited and unlimited liability was an extraordinary assertion. Hon. Members must be acquainted with case upon case in which wealthy shareholders in the City of Glasgow Bank, who could easily have paid five times the amount of their shares, would now be utterly ruined. It was desirable, therefore, in his opinion, after what had happened, to make the proposed change, and to enable all the unlimited banks to do what some of them were able to do. He had not been aware that the unlimited banks generally, under existing legislation, could not agree with their creditors and

    1559
    clients to turn themselves into limited banks; but it turned out that, though in some cases they could, in others they could not. He could not see the injustice of giving the same permission to all of them. In fact, he could not see the justice of withholding the permission. What right had they to refuse people the power of agreeing together as to how they should do their business? Of course, if they gave power to the directors or shareholders to say to their creditors, "You shall accept our limited liability whether you like it or not," it would be unjust; but this Bill gave creditors the option of refusing to agree to such an arrangement. It was a natural anxiety on the part of shareholders, after what had occurred, to wish to limit their liability; but it was also a step which would be immensely advantageous, not only for the banking interest, but for commercial interests generally. He was speaking now with some little degree of knowledge of what happened in his own district; and he believed that if they left the law in its present state the joint-stock banks would deteriorate in soundness. Gradually the rich shareholders—the people who would be perfectly able to pay five times the amount of their shares—would withdraw from those banks, and they would get in their places an unlimited number of men of straw, who would probably not be able even to pay up the value of their shares. He suggested to the Government that they should be satisfied with doing this Session what was useful, and not be ambitious to do more. If they passed a Bill containing the one clause to which he had referred—and the exact wording of it might be considered in Committee—they would confer a benefit on the community generally. Perhaps it might also be well to go into Committee on the audit clauses; although, like the hon. Member who spoke last, he was not very certain of any good resulting from them. They seemed to him to trench on that rather dangerous line of placing private affairs under the management of the State. But in regard to the main proposal of the Bill, he approved of it, believing the law was unjust which did not allow debtor and creditor to agree together in a way mutually advantageous, and he could not see why they should not at once remove that blot.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked, that there were several ways of approaching a measure when it was desired to destroy it, and some of those means had been resorted to in this discussion. Thus, the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) had advised the Government to wait until they could bring forward a complete measure dealing with the whole question of banking, while other hon. Members had attacked the measure by minutely criticizing its provisions in a way more suited for Committee than for the second reading. He did not intend to touch upon the one or the other, but to state broadly the principles of the measure, and why the Government thought it should pass. One word, however, as to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring). He agreed with the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that the arguments of the hon. Member for South Essex had been rather extraordinary. There had been running through the whole of that hon. Member's speech a dislike of the joint-stock system of banking altogether, and it came out when he spoke about persons becoming bankers who knew nothing about their business. The hon. Member had also said they must take care how they limited the liability of persons who put their money into banks; but that was a matter which ought to have been discussed when they originally sanctioned the establishment of limited banks, and upon that he would only remark that limited banks, established under the Act of 1862, had been as prosperous as any. He (Mr. Assheton Cross) admitted that mischief resulted from men becoming directors who knew nothing about banking, who were misled by the managers, and who did not see where they were going till it was too late. It was also true that there ought to be great caution in the selection of managers or managing partners. They had enormous powers intrusted to them, and it was important that the utmost possible care should be exercised in their appointment. Another danger which the hon. Member had touched on was also real—namely, that the persons who invested in banks did not consider really what they were doing. People would buy £100 shares, of which only £10 had been paid up, and forget all about the

    1561
    £90 which remained to be paid up. It was this class of investors who were referred to by the hon. Member, who said that it was practically of no importance to the shareholders whether the bank was limited or not. He (Mr. Assheton Cross) had been much startled at what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk), who said they could not deal with this question till they passed a law placing all banks on the same footing. Why, they might as well talk of passing a law that there should be only one denomination of religion. It was a principle in this country that they should carry on trade as they liked. He did not know whether the hon. Baronet meant that all banks should issue notes, or that none should do so; but the idea of making all banks alike was an extraordinary one. The hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) had argued on Clause 9 as if it were a perfectly new thing; whereas, in point of fact, it was only a clause of an old Act, newly drawn. Now, what was the real principle of this Bill, and what were they legislating about? It was said they were legislating in a panic. That he most entirely denied. No Government could have approached a question with greater calmness and consideration than the Government had approached this, nor did he think the House was in a panic, for they had discussed the matter with a due sense of the responsibility which attached to such a discussion. That the unfortunate failure of the City of Glasgow Bank, followed by that of the West of England Bank, had undoubtedly pressed the question on the notice of shareholders, the House, and the country, was true. The effect of those failures had been to make all the shareholders of banks look to their own position, and, having looked into that position, they had discovered that, in reality, they were subject to liabilities which they had never thought of before. Their danger had been brought home to their minds, and when the hon. Member for Forfar (Mr. J. W. Barclay) talked about this being a Bill in the interest only of bank shareholders he denied it. He did not say they were not benefited to a certain extent; but it was the benefit of the public generally which the Government and the House had to consider. It was to the interest of the public to
    1562
    retain the present class of shareholders—such men as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster)—and to give them such protection as would induce them not to withdraw their investments, which he believed they would not be so likely to do if they knew the full extent of their liability. On that ground, the matter appeared to him to be of sufficient importance to justify the intervention of Parliament. When they passed the Act of 1862 they gave all the banks the choice of registering themselves as limited liability companies; but, at the present moment, they had the greatest difficulty in so doing, and the object of this Bill was to restore to them absolute freedom to make themselves limited if they liked. Although many banks, when the Act of 1862 was passed, did not avail themselves of it, yet, if time and experience had shown them the desirability of doing so, they ought to have the same facilities for effecting that object now as they had in 1862. The hon. Member had surprised him, by arguing that those who had deposited money in unlimited banks would suffer if they had only limited liability companies to fall back upon; but he seemed to forget that the change could not be made without the concurrence of the creditors themselves. He wished to say a word or two about the audit and the form of accounts. Nothing would induce the Government to impose upon the banks any interference as to their management. The experience with regard to Insurance Companies would be sufficient of itself to deter anyone from such a step. They wished, however, to secure that there should be an independent audit. It was, undoubtedly, true an independent auditor could not go through the securities held by a bank and put an accurate value upon them; but he would be able to prevent the fraud in such balance sheets as those which had been issued by the directors of the City of Glasgow Bank. If the banks were honest, this would be a check upon inaccuracies; but if they were dishonest, of course, it would be difficult for any audit to defeat them. Then, again, under the present law, all limited banks were bound to publish detailed statements every six or twelve months; but the form of account thus provided was not proper or good enough. Of course, they were not bound to adhere

    1563
    to the form which had been placed in the Schedule of this Bill; but it was necessary, as a security to the shareholders and the public, that there should be some adequate form of account, which the banks should be bound to publish. He hoped the House would consent to read the Bill a second time. If this were done, it was the intention of the Government to commit it, pro formâ, in order that it might be re-printed in its amended form. Some Amendments would be introduced, but none of vital importance; and, with the exception of the 8th clause, the measure would, practically, remain in its present form.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed; considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 264]; re-committed for Thursday:

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

  CYPRUS—ADMINISTRATION OF THE ISLAND—CIVIL POLICE FORCE.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in rising to call attention to the impropriety of the proposal to vote money out of the Civil Service Estimates for the support of a Police Force in Cyprus, and to move—
    "That it is inexpedient to grant a sum of £26,000 for the Cyprus Police until a report from the authorities of the Island, showing the necessity for such expenditure, and a full statement of the finances of the Island be laid before the House; "
    said, the Vote had been originally intended for a military pioneer force, to consist of eight English officers and doctors, 10 interpreters, 20 native officers, and about 1,100 men, and would have been included in the Army Estimates but for the fact that it was illegal to employ aliens in the service of the country without a special Act of Parliament, for, of course, the Natives of Cyprus were still subjects of the Sultan. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had admitted the
    1564
    illegality of the proposed military pioneer force; and the corps had, therefore, been described as a police force, and a Vote for it had been placed among the Civil Service Estimates. What he wanted to know was, what this police force was to be; whether it was to be a military force under a new name? It would seem that the force was to be reduced in number, though it would cost the same sum of money. Upon the face of the Vote the name of the force only was changed; its character and object remained unaltered. To enlist a military force in the Island would be illegal without a special Act of Parliament; and, in the case of a military force, the Vote ought to appear in the Army Estimates, and the men placed under the Mutiny Act. But it must be assumed, he supposed, that this was to be a police force in aid of the civil administration of Cyprus. In any case, however, the Vote was abnormal and unconstitutional; the force, if military, was illegal; and, if civil, ought not to be paid for by this country. They had constantly been told that no such Vote would be necessary. The Prime Minister, speaking at the Mansion House, had said that the Island, even in the first year of our occupation, would be no burden to this country, and that it would furnish not only the sum annually accruing to the Sultan, but also the whole expense of the civil government; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken at Birmingham last winter to the same effect. It appeared, therefore, clear that there was no intention last year to call upon the House to vote money for the civil expenditure of Cyprus. He wished now to know, assuming that this was to be a bonâ fide civil force, and not merely disguised as a police force, whether it was to be an addition to the Zaptiehs, or Native police, a force which had not been reported favourably upon by the officers in charge of it. The Reports of Colonel Warren showed that a very large force of Zaptiehs already existed in Cyprus, and that they had very little work to do. There were at present something like 1,100 Zaptiehs in the Island, and he wished to know whether the 800 which the House was asked to vote was to be in addition to that force? If it was, he could only say that Cyprus would have the largest force of the kind in propor-

    1565
    tion to its population of any country of which lie had heard or read. As far as he could ascertain, the population of Cyprus was 150,000. There would be nearly 2,000 police, or 13 to 1,000 of the population; and there could not, he would venture to say, be employment for anything like that number. There had recently been complaints of the large police force in Ireland, and yet there the police were only two per 1,000 of the people. Taking the Colony which most resembled Cyprus, the Mauritius, which was about the same size, he found that, with a population of 350,000, it had only 600 Native police, or about two to 1,000. Again, the new Colony of Fiji, with 240,000 inhabitants, had only 400 police, and no military force whatever. He should like to know how many police would be required for Asia Minor if the calculation were based on the number supplied to Cyprus? A force of at least 140,000 police would be necessary; while India, if the police force there were placed on a similar footing, would require altogether 2,000,000 police. In the circumstances, he wished to know whether the Government were prepared to lay on the Table any Report showing the necessity of the enormous addition which it was proposed to make to the police force in the Island of Cyprus. From all that he could learn, such an increase of the force was absolutely unnecessary, and he could not help thinking that the proposal was the result of the strange and abnormal position of Cyprus with regard to the Government. If Cyprus were placed under the Colonial instead of the Foreign Office, he felt sure the House would never have heard of any such foolish, irregular, and unconstitutional proposal as that to which he had adverted. If, too, a man like Sir Philip Grant, who had so successfully administered, the government of Jamaica, had been appointed to govern Cyprus, he was confident he would have found it possible greatly to reduce the police force of the Island. The Island, in his opinion, had been rather hardly treated, for from no country in the world, he believed, was so large a proportion of its revenue drawn as it was proposed to draw from Cyprus, with the view of handing it over to the Porte. The Revenue was £170,000 a-year, and out of that sum he understood that £115,000 was to go direct to
    1566
    the Sultan, leaving a balance behind of only £45,000. That was a difficult position in which to place the Island, and it would scarcely be remedied by undertaking so large an expenditure as that which was now proposed. The present proposal was one of a most extraordinary, abnormal, and irregular character; and he contended that the Vote required explanation from the Under Secretary of State before they went into Committee, and he hoped that the Government would postpone the Vote till another year, if they did not wholly abandon it; as, without some Reports from those in authority in the Island, he did not think that the House of Commons ought to be called upon to vote such a large sum for a force which could not be required in the Island. He, therefore, begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in seconding the Motion, said, he felt his hon. Friend the Member for Reading had demolished the proposed force. The original proposal to establish a military pioneer force in Cyprus was perfectly illegal, unconstitutional, and indefensible. He must, however, strongly object to the action of the Foreign Office, who, finding the illegality of their proposal, sought to carry out their object by a sort of side-wind by establishing a force there under the name of police, which, seeing that it was a peaceful country and free from insurrection, was wholly unnecessary. There was, at that moment, a British military police force in Cyprus. Therefore, we had two forces of police in Cyprus amounting, probably, to about 1,200 men, and we were proposing to add a new force of between 800 and 900 men to the police. That would be a police force of 2,000 men to a population of 150,000—that was to say, one in every 25 grown men would be a policeman in a uniform of some kind. Was not this Vote an attempt to get into Cyprus by a side-wind a military force, and without the direct consent of the House to the enlistment? As we were getting near the end of the Session, he would impress upon the Government the great necessity of their laying the financial account of Cyprus before the House. If this was to be a civil police, then he thought we should have an account of all the civil expenditure of the Island that we might know

    1567
    what were likely to be the future demands on our purse. No doubt it might be said that the sum now asked for was small; but it was only a commencement, and it might lead to untold expenditure in the future. There was no blinking the question. The real difficulty with respect to Cyprus was that of being able to make both ends meet. That desirable result could hardly be attained as long as £150,000 of tribute had to be sent to Constantinople. All the more necessary, therefore, was it for the House to be put in possession of the financial Papers connected with the Island. He also hoped that before this Vote was agreed to we might also have other Papers respecting Cyprus which had been frequently asked for in the House, especially those in reference to the rejection of the election of a Greek gentleman to office on the ground of his nationality, and to the existence of negro slavery in the Island, upon both of which points the information furnished him came from high authority, and was in complete conflict with the denials which had been officially given; and, also, the new instructions with regard to the usages and customs of the people of the Island. Generally speaking, all our troubles as to Cyprus seemed to be only beginning. He ventured to express a fear that if this Vote of £26,000 were passed it would only be a fleabite in comparison with what we should be asked to vote in future years. They had never yet received any statement of the views of foreign Governments as to our acquisition of Cyprus. The reason given for placing Cyprus under the Foreign rather than under the Colonial Office was that there were so many international questions arising with respect to it. Were these complications at an end? Were foreign Governments satisfied with the jurisdiction we had established there? If so, why was not the Island placed under the Colonial Office? The Under Secretary had been asked for any new Papers showing the necessity for this police force and the inability of the Island to maintain it; but the Government stated in reply that no such Papers were in their possession; so that, in fact, the Government admitted they were about to establish a larger police force per head in Cyprus than had been established in almost any other country without any Papers to justify such a measure.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is inexpedient to grant a sum of £26,000 for the Cyprus Police until a report from the authorities of the Island, showing the necessity for such expenditure, and a full statement of the finances of the Island, be laid before the House,"—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. BALFOURsaid, that his hon. Friend who spoke last (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had so far taken the affairs of Cyprus under his special protection that he was not surprised he had gone again over a good many topics on which he had before addressed the House. He would not follow his hon. Friend's example in that respect; but two points had been mentioned as to which he thought an answer might be usefully given. The first was, that the government of Cyprus had been placed under the Foreign Office because complicated negotiations had been going on with foreign Powers as to their subjects resident in Cyprus, which negotiations could more advantageously be carried on by the Foreign Office than by the Colonial Office; but, argued his hon. Friend, those complications had been got over, and the government of the Island ought to be at once transferred to the Colonial Office. In that conclusion his hon. Friend was mistaken, as many and strong reasons existed to justify the government of Cyprus remaining under the Foreign Office. Then, again, his hon. Friend referred to a debate which took place in the House of Lords yesterday on the subject of slavery; and he stated that Lord Salisbury had made a mistake in saying that the existence of slavery had been denied, not only by the present government of the Island, but by Sir Garnet Wolseley. In that, too, his hon. Friend was in error, the fact being that, a considerable time ago, the existence of slavery in the Island had been distinctly denied by Sir Garnet Wolseley. With respect to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), he was sorry that so much industry on his part, in ascertaining the proportion of police to population in all the countries of Europe, and also in India and our Colonies, should have been thrown away.

    1569
    He regretted, too, that his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea should have wasted so much time in stating that the flood-gates of expenditure in Cyprus had now been opened, and that this claim of civil expenditure would be followed by many others. All these calculations and prophecies were thrown away, and for this reason—that the £26,000 now asked for by the Government was not, strictly speaking, for civil expenditure. The first hypothesis adopted by the hon. Member for Reading—that it was for military expenditure—came much nearer to the truth than that adopted sky him later on in his speech. There was, of course, no doubt that this expenditure of £26,000 was for a quasi-military purpose, and could not properly be said to belong to the civil expenditure of the country. Lord Beaconsfield was, therefore, right, when he said at the Mansion House that Cyprus would make no demand upon England in connection with civil expenditure. For what kind of uses would this force be required? It would be wanted to guard stores, perform escort duty, and, if necessary, to defend the Island. Who could deny that a body of men were required to fulfil these duties in Cyprus, or maintain that the force, which it was proposed to have, would be unnecessarily large for these purposes? There now remained two questions to be considered. Was the scheme of the Government economical and efficient for the purposes intended, and was it legal and constitutional? To answer the first of these questions, he would point out that the substitute for the scheme of the Government would be the presence of two battalions of regular soldiers, which would involve the expenditure of £70,000, which would fall on the Home Exchequer. Therefore, so far as economy was concerned, it was plain that the Government had pursued a judicious policy. As to the efficiency of the force, no doubt could be entertained by those who knew the class of men employed by the Government. He had now to consider how far the conduct of the Government was justifiable on legal and constitutional grounds. He admitted that Cyprus was in a somewhat anomalous position. It could not be denied that there might be difficulties and frictions connected with its administration; but these were outweighed by considerations
    1570
    of high policy. The question, however, was, had the Government, in its management of the affairs of Cyprus, violated either the letter or the spirit of the law? That they had not violated the letter of the law was admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and no one, he believed, could justly contend that they had violated its spirit. He therefore maintained that, in the action which they had taken, the Government had not done anything which was in the least illegal or unconstitutional. It should be remembered that the force which they proposed to establish was not a military force, and would be under the control of Parliament. No one, therefore, could say that the liberties of this country were endangered by its existence. For the reasons which he had given, he held that ample justification existed for the Vote which his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would propose at a later hour in the evening.
    MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, they were asked to vote a sum of money for the maintenance of this police force in Cyprus because we had burdened our administration of the Island with a financial obligation of a most onerous character. The amount of the tribute to be paid to the Porte was £115,000, out of a total Revenue of £175,000—a Revenue which represented the extreme sum which the most despotic Government could extort from an oppressed people. He very much regretted that we had taken upon ourselves the unworthy office of tax-gatherers for a foreign Power. Of the sum of £60,000 which remained at the disposal of the local Government in Cyprus, the surplus available for works of public improvement amounted at the utmost to £15,000 a-year. Englishmen, he was glad to say, felt a desire to carry out those improvements in the system of government which were shadowed forth by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Birmingham, and it was impossible to carry out those humane designs without an expenditure of money. It was clear that the necessary sum was not forthcoming from local resources, so that it was very natural that the Government of Cyprus should make an effort to insinuate into the Estimates laid before the British Parliament a Vote which, under whatever designation it might

    1571
    present itself, would be, practically, a contribution from the National Exchequer towards the local Revenues of Cyprus. They might call this a police force, or whatever they pleased; but he was quite satisfied, from what he had seen of the docile habits of the people of Cyprus, that the proposed force was not required to guarantee public order, and, therefore, he felt sure that the intention was to employ men composing it in a variety of civil duties. The long-neglected Island presented an infinite field for the work of improvement. He ventured to urge upon the Government that they should take steps to amend the Convention into which they had entered, and relieve the local Government of Cyprus from the burden of an annual tribute to the Porte. While urging this upon them, he was very sensible of the fact that there was really no military value attaching to Cyprus. He could not, however, entertain the thought of abandoning the people of the Island, after the encouragement given them to rely upon British protection. Although the bargain which we had made was not a favourable one from a British point of view, he held that it was our duty to take immediate steps to improve the position of the local Government of Cyprus.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he could not object to the general tone of the observations which had been made by the hon. Member for Hastings, who had preceded him; but he must object to a line of criticism which would not admit that Her Majesty's Government, having taken possession of Cyprus on high grounds of policy, were not justified in the line which they had adopted and followed. England having made up her mind to occupy and administer Cyprus, they could not recede from their bargain; and the question was whether the financial arrangements made was not the best, and, in fact, the only arrangement that could be made. That arrangement was that England was to give to Turkey only that which Turkey had got before; and unless we had broken the Treaty of Paris and violently taken possession of Cyprus it was not possible to come to any other arrangement. It was possible, perhaps probable, that in the future better arrangements than existed at present might be made for the government of Cyprus; but as long as the present
    1572
    arrangements existed he could not see how it was possible to alter the state of things which had been agreed upon between this country and Turkey. What he complained of was that, before the Island had been occupied 12 months, every conceivable Vote in connection with the place had been exaggerated, and if the prosperity of the Island was a success it would not be owing to the good wishes or good-will of the Liberal Party in that House, who had done their best to disparage everything connected with the Island. In the face of all this, he had heard with pleasure the good wishes which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Hastings for the future welfare of Cyprus, and could not refrain from expressing his regret at the tone which had characterized the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, who was always ready to listen to and to believe the complaints which came from the people of any country between China and Peru who, being subject to British rule, were disaffected concerning it. The view which the hon. Baronet had expressed on the present occasion was based upon a misapprehension, and upon the existence of exceptional circumstances, as he believed the hon. Baronet would see when he came to read the Papers which would be laid before Parliament on the subject. He should not, on the present occasion, enter upon the broad question of whether it was or was not wise for England to have taken possession of the Island; but, having so taken possession, he thought the House would agree with the hon. Member for Hastings in thinking that it was the duty of England to do the best it could in the circumstances. As far as the question of slavery in Cyprus was concerned, he had nothing to withdraw from what he had already said on the subject. He was told that slavery did not now exist, and that the Courts of the Island had not given effect to any demand for the holding in involuntary servitude any person in the Island. There was no intention on the part of the Government at the present moment to propose a large expenditure for Cyprus. With regard to the Papers which the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea had asked for that Session, the accounts had not come home from Cyprus nearly so fast as Her Majesty's Government thought they would have come; but he should be

    1573
    happy to produce such as he could for the inspection of the hon. Member for Chelsea. He was sorry to think that the promise he made of a financial statement in regard to the affairs of Cyprus before the end of the Session might not be fulfilled; but that would arise from a complication in the manner of keeping the accounts which had been found to be necessary, but could not possibly have been foreseen. The views of a correspondent of The Cologne Gazette had been quoted as against the policy which Her Majesty's Government had pursued; but he could not for a moment think of treating seriously opinions of the kind, as they knew more about the Island than a newspaper correspondent. At the same time, the greatest attention had been given to every statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea; and he (Mr. Bourke) thought it would be admitted by everyone who had perused the Papers that these statements had been substantially refuted. The greater portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Reading appeared to be based upon the supposition that the Vote which Her Majesty's Government asked for was in the same shape in which it had appeared some time ago. That supposition, however, was not correct, as the hon. Gentleman himself had been compelled to admit. In common fairness to Her Majesty's Government everyone should bear in mind that when this Vote was first put down in the month of November the Island of Cyprus had only been in the occupation of the Government for some five months, and that, consequently, it was impossible for them to know at that time exactly what were the requirements of the Island, and what description of permanent force it would be necessary to maintain there. The question between the hon. Member and Her Majesty's Government was a very small one, because the force employed, in the Island would have to discharge both military and civil duties. As had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford and others some time ago, there were technical and legal objections to the form of the Vote as it originally stood. Its form had, however, been changed, and he trusted that it would now be presented to the House in a perfectly legal shape. It now took the form of an estimate of the amount required for the year ending March, 1880,
    1574
    to defray the additional expenditure thrown upon the Government of Cyprus in consequence of the augmentation of the police force, rendered necessary by the reduction of the military garrison in the Island. As it had been intended to employ the military force it was originally proposed to keep in the Island in civil duties, so now it was intended to employ this augmented police force in discharging Imperial duties, such as those entailed in defending the Island, and other military duties; and, therefore, it was only fair that the funds for paying this additional force of police should be provided out of the Imperial Exchequer. A large number of the force would be employed in escorting treasure from one part of the Island to the other. [A laugh.] It was all very well for the hon. Member for Reading to sneer at that statement; but it was a duty that had to be performed, and officers and official persons were often employed on it, and it was certainly an Imperial duty. There was already a police ordinance; and though it might require amendment in regard to the regulation of this additional force, yet it would be placed substantially in the same category as the present police force. There was no legal objection to the proposal which any hon. Member could bring forward, and he could quite well understand the disappointment of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they found that the Vote was denuded of such objections. No one who had the good government of Cyprus at heart could doubt that the proposal of the Government was a fair one, and that it would contribute very much to the prosperity of the Island, and to the good administration of every branch of the Service.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, they had had two accounts of the proposed Vote—one from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and another from the Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, having heard the explanations, he was disposed to ask, in the celebrated phrase, "Under which thimble lies the pea?" He had never known of an attempt to palm off on the House of Commons a Vote which was so utterly unsatisfactory as this. What did it come to? It was a piece of financial jugglery, deliberately done by the Government. They admitted

    1575
    that they had kept the Vote upon the Estimates from February till the 21st of July, and that it was an utterly illegal and unconstitutional Vote. They had endeavoured to smuggle through the Civil Service Estimates a military Vote, in defiance of the first principles of the Constitution. Having been challenged months ago on this subject, they went on with it and stuck to it; and it was only through the pertinacity of the hon. Member for Reading that they had been driven out of that position. They had asked for money, in defiance of a well-known financial principle by which the House was governed, and in the teeth of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, which forbade them to enlist aliens; and yet, all the time, they had had on the Table a demand upon the House to vote this money. Finding that they could not justify it as a military pioneer force, they had put the pea under another thimble and called it a Vote for the Cyprus police, and then, with great ingenuity—and he might say ingenuousness—the Private Secretary of Lord Salisbury said it was all the same thing, and the Under Secretary said it was almost the same thing. These men were "to take the place of a military force"—these were the words of the Under Secretary—and when it came to be challenged that they were the same thing as the pioneer force the hon. Gentleman said that was nothing. The fact was that the Government were proposing to juggle the House by a mere play of words into voting under one name money for an object which was illegal under another name. He never heard of such a thing in the House of Commons; and it had not been attempted for generations or for centuries. The Government might have a majority at their backs to support them in passing this Vote; but there was an ulterior judgment, far beyond their majority, which would have to be passed upon the question of Cyprus, and he was not afraid of that ulterior judgment. What was the state of public opinion and the position of the House with regard to Cyprus 12 months ago? They were not then attempting to get up a miserable pioneer force; on the contrary, they were sending Sir Garnet Wolseley at the head of 10,000 men to occupy and defend the Island. It was a high policy then, for they were going to regenerate
    1576
    Asia Minor, and Cyprus was to be the fulcrum by which they were to move the world. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade said that the whole of the East were exclaiming, "When are you coming?" The noble Lord seemed to be playing on the bagpipes, "The Campbells are coming." Under the direction of Her Majesty's Government the whole of the East was going to be regenerated. Steam ploughs were to be introduced into Cyprus and reforms into all Asia Minor. What had now become of these steam ploughs and reforms? What had become of the emporium of steam ploughs to be established in Cyprus, and of all the farthing rushlight illumination of 12 months ago? It was flickering in the socket, and was giving out a savour which was not agreeable. And now they were in the dregs on the lees of the Anglo-Turkish Convention, and they were at present engaged with a miserable juggle of a Vote for £26,000 to eke out the glorious occupation of Cyprus. There they were, with the Government on its last legs, shifting about under one name and another in order to squeeze that sum out of the taxation of the country for the purpose of keeping this miserable abortion of Cyprus upon its legs. And that was the result of 12 months of the great policy undertaken for the regeneration of Asia Minor. The Government assured them that they would ask for no more money on behalf of Cyprus; but what had become of the great Famagousta harbour scheme, where the Fleets of England were to ride and dominate the East? Nothing had been said of that by the Under Secretary. It was reasonable, when the House was asked for £26,000, to inquire what was the financial situation of Cyprus? The Under Secretary gave no answer. It appeared that those admirable administrators, who were to set an example of model farming to Asia Minor, had not sent homo any accounts, the reason being that the juice of the orange had been given to someone else, while these unfortunate officials had been left to do what they could with the rind. Her Majesty's Government had been in such a hurry to acquire Cyprus that they were willing to give any price for it—to pay away its whole available income. And why? Because they signed a sort of Salisbury-Schouvaloff Memorandum.

    1577
    They bought a pig in a poke, and when they opened the poke they found a very bad pig indeed. What was the end of it all? They had this wretched Vote, which seemed to him nothing less than the catastrophe of a diplomatic farce. Last October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured the people of Birmingham that he had a pocketful of statistics about Cyprus, and that he was going to give us a Cyprus Budget; but the Under Secretary now said that he had got no materials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to the people of Birmingham of the "Returns which were made out of the estimated Revenue of Cyprus." Where were these statistics and Returns? [Mr. BOURKE: I stated them.] Stated them! That was not the way to make a Return. The statements of the Under Secretary had been most cautious, reserved, and, as regarded that night at least, ambiguous; but the House wanted the statistics and Returns which the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted last October. If there were such Returns they ought to be brought forward to show the solvency of the Island. The Prime Minister, speaking at the Mansion House, said—
    "Perhaps it will not be uninteresting to the citizens of London to learn that Cyprus will be no burden to the people of this country."
    But the poor citizens of London would learn a different fact when this Vote was brought before them. There was a great deal of that sort of "bunkum" going on about July last year; and the Prime Minister added that the Revenues of the Island would not only pay the Sultan, but would also defray the cost of its civil government. Well, either Cyprus did not pay for its civil government, as the Prime Minister said it would, or this Vote ought to be in the Military Estimates. That was the dilemma. This was a military Vote. [Mr. BALFOUR: A quasi-military Vote.] The Under Secretary had said that something was "almost a quibble." Well, he would not call what his hon. Friend had said "almost a quibble," but a quasi-quibble. What was the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was the guardian of the finances of the country, of this "quasi-military Vote?" Ought it to be in the Military Estimates, or the quasi-Military Estimates; and when would the right hon. Gentleman produce his quasi-Supplemen
    1578
    tary Estimates? He should be extremely curious to know what was the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this quasi-military Vote. There had been no information on the subject which had not been dragged out of the Government with the greatest possible difficulty; and he thought it impossible for the House of Commons to vote money for this new settlement under the circumstances, after the assurance of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that nothing would be required for its maintenance. He was glad the matter had been brought forward in that form, because he did not believe there was anything which was more likely to enlighten the people of this country as to what the character of the transaction had been from first to last. The Government had split the amount they now required, first into one thing and then into another, and when they were asked to say what was the financial position of the Island they said they had no Reports and could give no information. Either this was a military body or it was not. If it was a military body it should have been raised in a proper manner; and if not, the Government should show that it was a civil force. It seemed to him that it had been a quasi-military affair from the beginning, and had never any substance in it. It was meant to throw dust in the eyes of the country, and would come to grief, just like the Anglo-Turkish Convention on to which it was tacked.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not help remarking that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford was chargeable with one very monstrous vice—he meant the vice of ingratitude. The hon. and learned Gentleman was really more ungrateful to the Island of Cyprus than he could have conceived possible, for that Island had furnished the hon. and learned Gentleman during the last 12 months with all sorts of excuses for making grand speeches and for saying good sayings. The hon. and learned Gentleman ought really to be very grateful to the Island of Cyprus, for, in his speeches, he had prophesied all sorts of misfortunes and failures; but the failures had ended in the failure of his predictions. Probably, the hon. and learned Gentleman might keep it up a little while longer by great force of ingenuity

    1579
    and a grand selection of words; but he thought that those who laughed the last would probably laugh the longest. The last failure which he seemed to cling to was the supposed failure of something that had been said about the Island of Cyprus; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), on the part of the Government, was quite prepared to appeal to the not very distant future as to the working of the experiment which was being tried in the Island of Cyprus. Hon. Members had wandered so far from the original Motion of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that it was desirable to recall their attention to it. Upon that Motion there had been founded a series of discussions upon almost every possible subject in connection with Cyprus. Reference had been made to a speech delivered by him at Birmingham last October. What he then said was to the effect that, according to the accounts received from those who were inquiring into the Revenues of Cyprus, the Government gathered that the civil administration of the Island would be without cost to this country, though he did put in a word of caution, and remarked that, possibly, in the first year, some expense might be thrown upon us. Hon. Members were well aware that the original idea of the Government, in entering into the arrangements for the occupation of Cyprus, was that we should have a position which would be important as a military and naval position, and as a place of arms, and which would be of great importance in that part of the Levant, because it would enable us to fulfil obligations that we had entered into on behalf of the country with regard to Asia Minor. We did not propose, in the step we were taking, to injure or detract in any way from the advantages which the Sultan derived from the Island. We held that it would be possible for us to undertake to make a bargain by which we could leave the Sultan in as good a position as he previously occupied in regard to the revenues from Cyprus; while we undertook to maintain the government of the Island, without any expense to this country, out of the revenues to be fairly extracted from the people of Cyprus. Of course, if we were to make use of Cyprus for purposes of our own as a place of arms, that would involve mili-
    1580
    tary expenditure altogether outside of the administration of Cyprus itself. One of the first steps the Government took was to send out to Cyprus a gentleman of considerable financial ability to report upon the financial condition of the Island. That gentleman sent home a preliminary Report, from which he took the figures that were given in the speech that had been referred to. Speaking from memory, they had from that gentleman a statement that they might expect from one source so much revenue, and from another source so much; that the expenditure for purely civil purposes would be a certain other amount; that the surplus would be the sum to be paid to the Porte; and it appeared that by better administration, by taking care that the revenue levied from the taxpayer should find its way into the Treasury, and remain in the hands of middlemen, they would be able to defray the cost of the civil administration, and still to pay the tribute due to the Porte. He had himself been a little sceptical, and for that he had been thought to take a rather gloomy view; he had been a little sceptical as to the first year, supposing that there might then be a difficulty in making ends meet in regard to the civil administration. But as to the military expenditure, that, of course, was put in quite a different category. They were occupying Cyprus for their own purpose, which was a military purpose, and they thought it was right that they should defray out of the Expenditure of this country the charge for maintaining a proper military force in Cyprus. Therefore, in his statement, and in those of the Prime Minister and others, there was always an exception made as to the military expenditure in the prospect they held out of Cyprus paying its own way. Then they came to the question of what the military expenditure was to be. His right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War informed them what would be the establishment which he contemplated maintaining there; but when the matter came to be more carefully considered it appeared that it would not be necessary or advisable that that amount of English force should be kept in Cyprus in present circumstances. But, inasmuch as that force would have discharged various duties of a military character, of course, some provision had to be made for

    1581
    the performance of those duties. Accordingly, it had been in contemplation to have a force which would have been called the Cyprus pioneers. That stood upon the Estimates for some time. He need not now go into the circumstances in which it was found that that would not have been the proper or a legal step to take; but another arrangement was made which brought the matter into the form in which it now appeared on the Estimate. Whether they called it civil or military expenditure, it was expenditure incurred in consequence of the withdrawal of the troops which it was originally intended to keep in the Island, and which would have relieved them from the necessity of employing this force there, whatever name they pleased to give it. They were asked to say what was the precise financial position of Cyprus at this moment, and why they did not produce the accounts which had been rendered. He was not sure how the matter stood as to the sending home of those accounts. He knew that they had been asked for, and that they were very anxious to see them at the Treasury; but he knew, also, that there had been a good deal of difficulty as to the negotiation. The nature of the bargain was necessarily one involving some delay. They were to pay the Porte the average surplus of the Revenue of Cyprus over its Expenditure in past years. That seemed, at first sight, a very simple thing to ascertain; but when they came to deal with a country like Cyprus, and with a system such as had prevailed there of late years, it was not so easy to get at the exact sum. It could not be furnished by return of post. They had to go into a number of questions, some of which were very complicated. They had to ascertain in what mode the remittances were made; to verify the nature of those remittances; learn the currency in which they were made, and the rate at which the payments to the Porte were fixed. It was easy to say that such and such a service cost 10,000 piastres; but how were they to ascertain what a piastre was—whether it was in coin or in paper; whether it was to be reckoned at one rate of exchange or at another? All those things took time to adjust; and when they had to deal with Orientals in those matters they could not proceed with the same rapidity as when the Treasury dealt with the Admiralty or
    1582
    the War Office. Even in transactions between the Treasury and the Indian Government considerable time elapsed before they got at the exact state of the accounts. And when they had to go into a settlement between the British Government administering a Turkish dependency on British principles and the Turkish Government, the number of questions they had to solve took more time than one might be apt at first to suppose. They had, therefore, a right to appeal to the consideration of Parliament and of the country in the whole of those matters in relation to the improvement and the reform of the administration of Oriental countries. Why, what was the theory on which they were proceeding? That theory was, that there existed great abuses of long standing, thoroughly ingrained and very difficult to unravel, and that they desired to get rid of those abuses and to introduce a better system. If they wanted to introduce radical reforms they must go patiently into those questions; and the very fact that there were so many of those abuses to be corrected proved the difficulty of the work they had undertaken, and also indicated the great advantage that would be derived from its accomplishment. He ventured to say that when they looked at Cyprus some few years hence they would find that a great and good work had been done in the early years of their administration. He said that those who had been administering the Island during the last 12 months had done a work which would bear comparison with the achievements of many founders of States and legislators in bringing about great reforms. It was not because they might pick a hole here, or another there, or because they might receive a letter from some discontented person who might have had an interest in the retention of the old system, and who cried out at what was being done—it was not because of such things that they were to condemn their own Government, which, amid many difficulties and all sorts of misapprehensions, was endeavouring to correct those evils. It had been said, in the course of the debate, that it was a condemnation of their system of Native police that they had to punish and imprison five or six zaptiehs and bring them into order. Why, the case always made against the Turkish Government was that the zap-

    1583
    tiehs committed abuses and excesses here and there, and ought to be brought into order. Well, they were now trying to bring them into order, and in what way? By punishing them for their excesses; and when five or six offending zaptiehs were so dealt with they were told that they were administering a wretched system. Those things were just proofs of the difficulties they had to contend with, and also of the resolution of the administrators who had to grapple with them. And when hon. Gentlemen might criticize their proceedings—and he did not dispute their right to do so—they ought to assist them in putting an end to those abuses, rather than to pick up the complaints of every discontented person in Cyprus, and take the truth of those complaints for granted. He thought that the experiments they had been trying and the progress they had made would be viewed very differently, when it came to be read by impartial critics, than it now appeared to be regarded by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that the Motion and the speech of the hon. Member for Reading might be resolved into two parts—first, the propriety or the impropriety of this Vote; and, secondly, a complaint that the Government had not fulfilled their promise as to placing before the House proper accounts of the Revenue and Expenditure of Cyprus. On the first question—the propriety of the Vote—the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted most fully what those who had preceded him in the debate had admitted in a less degree from the other side. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Balfour) had invented the phrase "quasi-military Vote." The Under Secretary of State was a little more courageous, and said that the persons who were to be paid out of that Vote were doing military duty in maintaining the authority of the Government, in escorting treasure, and in occupying the position. The force was to perform precisely the duties that a military Force would have had to discharge; and, therefore, this Vote was simpliciter a military one, and Her Majesty's Government had consequently invaded the Rules of the Constitution by placing it among the Civil Estimates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about a quid pro quo for the Sultan in regard to the occupation of Cyprus; but, last year, it had been
    1584
    asserted that the Island of Cyprus had been handed over to us by the Sultan as an equivalent for our defending his Asiatic possessions. The Government never condescended last year to such an argument as they had used to-day, an argument which, in effect, was that this was, after all, only a financial question, and that we were a species of political tenants paying as a rent this protection of the Island. Although the Government had had in their hands for the last nine months the estimates of the Revenue and of the Expenditure of Cyprus, they had not laid a single Paper in reference to the matter upon the Table of the House, the only excuse they offered for not doing so being that they had not quite settled the exact sum that was to be paid to the Sultan. Parliament had not been put in a fair position, in being asked to vote in a Civil Service Estimate, without any information as to the purposes for which it was needed, what was really a military charge. In his opinion, the hon. Member had completely made out his case against the Government, and he hoped that the House would take the same view of the matter.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 72: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 198.)
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £154,995, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, several hon. Members who had left the House were, as well as himself, under the impression that the Vote for the payment of Exchequer Bonds would be taken before the Civil Service Estimates were proceeded with; and it was, he thought, desirable that the arrangement, which he understood had been entered into, should be adhered to.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (1.) £2,500,000 Exchequer Bonds, agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES.
    (2.) £154,995, to complete the sum for Diplomatic Services.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEtook occasion to call the attention of the Committee to the amounts which they were asked to vote for the Embassy at Berlin and the Legation in Switzerland. Having served, he said, on the Committee which sat two years ago to inquire into the subject of diplomatic salaries, he had come to the conclusion that no reasonable grounds existed at the present time for the difference which was maintained between the salaries which, were paid to the members of certain Embassies and Legations and those which were paid to others. He would now offer no opinion on the general scale of diplomatic salaries; but he wished to point out to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that the salary which was paid to our Ambassador at Berlin was, so far as he was able to form a judgment in the matter, too low as compared with those of some of our other Ambassadors. He saw no good reason why that should be so, because the cost of living was not, he believed, less in Berlin than in any of the other European capitals. He was also of opinion that the salaries which were paid to the members of the Legation in Switzerland were very much too small as contrasted with the allowances which were made to the members of other Legations of the same rank. He would not now discuss the expediency of reducing the allowances for all our Embassies; but would simply confine himself to drawing the attention of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the difference which he had mentioned, and which he thought ought not to be allowed to continue, for it seemed clear to him that either the sums expended on other Embassies and Legations were too high, or that the amounts which the Committee were asked to vote for the Embassy at Berlin and the Legation in Switzerland were too low.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, the question which the hon. Baronet had raised was one of considerable interest. The Embassy at Berlin was, no doubt, a very
    1586
    important one, and it was the fact that the salaries paid to the members of that Embassy were less than the allowances which were made in the case of the Embassies at Paris, or St. Petersburg, or Vienna. He was not, he might add, by any means prepared to contend that it might not be fair to raise the salaries of the members of the Berlin Embassy; but the difference to which the hon. Baronet had called attention had existed for a long time, and it did not seem to the Government to be desirable to make any change in the amounts paid to the various Embassies at present. They were also of opinion that they would scarcely be justified in asking the Committee to vote a further sum of money for the purpose of increasing the salaries of the members of the Swiss Legation.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the speech of the hon. Gentleman furnished another illustration of the manner in which Under Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs invariably dealt with criticisms on the Diplomatic Estimates. They, and, indeed, all the officials connected, with the Foreign Office, appeared to be of opinion that the scale at which diplomatic salaries had been fixed should be maintained, although circumstances might have entirely changed. He understood his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to desire to call attention to what was patent to every hon. Member, that a very considerable change had taken place in the position of our Embassies in the different capitals of Europe, and that the salaries of our Ministers in some of those capitals did not bear that proportion one to another which they ought. He did not, however, understand his hon. Friend by any means to contend that the salary of our Ambassador at Berlin should be raised, but that that should be done only in the event of its being shown that the salaries of our Ambassadors at the other Courts of Europe were not too high; for if they were they ought to be lowered. His own opinion was that the salaries paid to those Ambassadors were too high; and he would suggest that, instead of raising the salary of the Ambassador at Berlin, the salaries of the Ambassadors at Paris, and some of the other capitals of Europe, should be reduced to the level of that which the Ambassador at Berlin received. The case of Paris appeared to him, he might add, to be a somewhat

    1587
    curious one. The position of that city had undergone a complete change within the last few years. The main political influence of Europe, which at one time was centered there, was now centred in Berlin; yet we continued to keep up in Paris an Embassy at an enormous expense, instead of reducing the charge to the amount which we expended on our Embassy at a Court where the political influence was at least equal, if not much greater. He might also take the case of Constantinople in support of the view which he desired to impress on the Committee. The political character and power of the Porte had recently undergone a very great change indeed. No one would, for a moment, argue that the position of the present Sultan had not been greatly impaired as compared with that which was occupied by his Predecessors on the Ottoman Throne. Yet we still maintained at Constantinople an enormous Embassy. It was, perhaps, the most expensive of all our Embassies. He found that our Ambassador in Turkey received a salary of £8,000 a-year, and that he occupied a palace of great magnificence. He was aided in the discharge of his duties by a principal Secretary of Embassy, who had a salary of £900 a-year. There were, besides, three second Secretaries of Embassy, a third Secretary, a physician, a chaplain, and a number of other officials. Then there were miscellaneous expenses which had to be provided for, and the result was that the amount expended on the Embassy at Constantinople exceeded, if he was not mistaken, the charge borne on the Estimates in connection with any Embassy in Europe. Now, he had some years ago induced the House to appoint a Committee before which the whole question of our diplomatic expenditure was brought; and he was quite prepared to believe that that Committee had done a certain amount of useful work. He could not, at the same time, say that the expenditure on account of the Diplomatic Service had been reduced. We paid our Ministers abroad salaries far larger than those which were paid to their Ministers by any other country in the world; and he was strongly of opinion that the time must soon arrive when another review must be taken of the scale of our expenditure for the Diplomatic Service, and when the question must be consi-
    1588
    dered how far the great changes which had taken place in Europe rendered it the duty of the Government to reduce the charges on account of our Embassies and Missions abroad. A considerable reduction might, he felt satisfied, be made in many cases with advantage; while, in other cases, no doubt, it might be found that the present establishments did not go beyond what was expedient and desirable. But although, on examining the Vote, he was by no means satisfied with its general character or the total expenditure on the Diplomatic Service, he did not think it was necessary, or that it would be advantageous, to challenge a Division upon it at that moment. He could not ignore the fact that this was a moribund Parliament, and he did not think it would be well to have questions such as those to which he had been referring investigated now that the present House of Commons was so near the end of its existence. He could have no expectation, at all events, that the present House would enter upon the subject in the spirit of reform and economy. He could only hope that the next House of Commons would contain a larger number of economists, from whom a Motion for the reduction of our Expenditure would receive a more favourable reception than could now be expected from it.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, that the fact of the matter was, as the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must be aware, that although the Vote might look large upon paper it had been found impossible to reduce it. The Diplomatic Service, as a whole, was badly paid; and he did not think that any Government, taking into account the duties which had to be performed, and having due regard to the interests of the country, could say that our Representatives at foreign capitals should not be liberally remunerated and enabled to maintain a position of becoming dignity.
    MR. CHILDERSasked for an explanation of the item of £3,000 for providing a new steamer on the River Tigris. The item was one, he thought, which ought to come under the head of the Consular Expenditure, as the matter was connected with the duties which were discharged by our Consul General at Bagdad.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was probably a better authority than himself on the question of

    1589
    whether the item should be placed in the Consular or Diplomatic Vote, but the point was one of only minor importance. As to the steamer on the Tigris, the right hon. Gentleman was aware that we had had a ship on that river for many years. The old vessel had become worn out, and it was anxiously desired by the Indian Government that she should be replaced. Her Majesty's Government, after carefully considering the communications which they had received on the subject, thought it their duty to insert in the Estimates the sum of £3,000 as a contribution to the building of a new ship; but that was not to be an annual Vote.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £184,597 to complete the sum for Consular Services.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he found no mention made in the Estimates of a salary for a Consul at Philippopolis. There was an item for the salary of a Vice Consul; but that was an old item. The salaries of some of the new Consuls were given, but not those of all of them. Was it proposed to have a Supplementary Vote?
    MR. BOURKEsaid he had stated some time ago, in answer to a question which had been put to him in the House, that several new Consuls had been appointed, and he thought the provision made for their salaries in the Estimates would be sufficient, without having recourse to a Supplementary Vote. It would, of course, be the duty of the Government to propose a Supplementary Vote, if necessary.
    MR. CHILDERSreminded the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that a Return had been promised with regard to the Anatolian Consuls before the Estimates were made; but that no such Return had been laid upon the Table of the House. Looking at the multifarious duties of, the Foreign Office, he would be the last to blame the hon. Gentleman for this; but thought it was only right that the House of Commons should have placed before it, before the end of the Session, a Paper showing the changes which had taken place in the Asiatic Consulates as a result of the Treaty of Berlin.
    MR. BOURKEpromised that a Paper should be laid upon the Table. The Government were rather anxious that
    1590
    the spheres of the Consuls in the districts referred to should from time to time be changeable.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDsaid, it was not satisfactory that the House should vote money for Consulates, such as Bosnia and Cyprus, which had been abolished, in order to apply it to others the Government proposed to establish, with regard to which the House had no information.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, several Consular appointments had been made to Anatolia and Roumania which had not been gazetted. He complained that the Committee should be called upon to vote money for Consulates that did not exist, and no money for those which were in existence. He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary would furnish the Committee with the best information in his power with reference to the salaries proposed to be given to the Consuls in Anatolia and Roumania and Paphos in general terms, and would also state who were the Consuls proposed to be appointed to these districts.
    MR. BOURKEbelieved that two of the Consuls in Anatolia would receive salaries of £800 and £900, and the others £400 and £500 a-year.
    MR. RYLANDShad to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to another part of the world. He had not expected that this Vote would come on that evening, and had given Notice of a Question which it would, perhaps, be more convenient to ask now in order that the Under Secretary might have an opportunity of making an explanation to the Committee which would probably be satisfactory to them. The case, which was altogether a peculiar one, had reference to the Consul General in Siam. He was informed that, on a recent occasion, the King of Siam flogged one of his Ministers—a circumstance, probably, of very little interest to the Members of the House. Now, it so happened that this Minister of the King married the daughter of the Consul at Bankok; and the Consul, feeling that British interests were seriously affected in consequence of his son-in-law, the Prime Minister of the King of Siam, having been flogged, immediately ordered up from Singapore the Foxhound, one of Her Majesty's gunboats. This vessel arrived and anchored off Bankok in order to make some de-

    1591
    mands to satisfy the wounded honour of Great Britain. He had put a Question to the Under Secretary some time ago upon this subject, asking him whether there was any truth in the statement which had been made, and the hon. Gentleman said, in reply, that the information was correct, that some difference existed between the Consul General and the King of Siam; but he did not give the House any information as to the particular facts. According to the information which he (Mr. Rylands) had, and which he believed to be correct, this state of contention between the Consul General and the King continued, and the Foxhound was still lying off Bankok to support the Consul General for some object or other. He was also informed that the Consul General had marked his serene displeasure with the conduct of the King by giving orders that the officers of the gunboat should not receive courtesies from the Siamese nor pay to them any courtesies whatever, and that a garden party having taken place which was visited by some of the ship's officers in undress, the Consul General, on hearing of it, issued a prohibition against the officers visiting or inviting the Siamese. He, therefore, wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it was a fact that the son-in-law of the Consul General having been flogged by his master the King of Siam, a British gunboat had been sent up to Bankok, and whether it was a fact that a considerable amount of ill-feeling had been caused by that transaction? In his opinion, the Consul General had exceeded the duties of his office, and the Committee had a right to complain that one of Her Majesty's gunboats had been used in this matter, unless there was some reason for the act other than had appeared.
    MR. BOURKEcould not state whether the circumstances related by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. RYLANDS) were true or not, although they were, probably, substantially correct. It was correct to say that the Consul General did order up a gunboat; but it had since left Bankok. Her Majesty's Government were quite alive to the necessity of the strictest investigation into the conduct of the Consul General.
    SIR CHAELES W. DILKEasked whether the Consul General had, of his own accord, sent home any Report of the
    1592
    case before an explanation was asked for?
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he thought a Report had been received.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £32,401 to complete the sums for the Colonies, Grants in Aid.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHcalled attention to the item under subhead L. He believed that Sir Bartle Frere no longer held the office of Her Majesty's High Commissioner for South Africa and Governor-in-Chief of the Cape and Griqualand West; but the Estimates, nevertheless, provided for his salary. Sir Garnet Wolseley having gone out to the Cape as High Commissioner to the seat of war and also to Natal, he asked what effect would that change have upon the Vote?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the office continued to be held by Sir Bartle Frere in South Africa, except as to that part which was connected with the seat of war, where the functions of the office were, of course, transferred to Sir Garnet Wolseley. Sir Bartle Frere was still the Governor and High Commissioner of the Cape and Griqualand West, with respect to which his functions remained, practically, what they were before. The Vote, therefore, remained at the same figure as formerly.
    MR. GOURLEYasked for information with respect to the sum of £1,500 for the government of the small Island of Heligoland. He also remarked that the same amount of £3,000 was charged as formerly for the steamer on the African coast, and thought that, inasmuch as there was a very large number of small steamers in connection with the Admiralty lying at various places and rarely used, he did not see why one of them should not be sent out to the Coast of Africa. He thought the time had come when the class of vessels used on the Coast of Africa might be revised by the Admiralty.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the several places on the Coast of West Africa under the jurisdiction of the Government of Sierra Leone could only be conveniently reached from Sierra Leone by sea; and it was, therefore, necessary that the Governor should have a steamer at his disposal, of which he made excellent use for ascending rivers into the interior, open-

    1593
    ing up those rivers, and establishing friendly relations with the Natives. The Island of Heligoland was, no doubt, a small possession of the Crown; but it was a possession which, he ventured to say, this country would not readily give up, while he was quite sure the inhabitants of the Island would be very sorry to see it given up. He did not think the small sum annually voted in aid of its government could be regarded as excessive.
    MR. W. H. JAMESthought the Committee were entitled to information of a more definite character with regard to the salary of Sir Bartle Frere than had been afforded by the right hon. Gentleman. He asked, in the event of Sir Bartle Frere not resuming the position which he formerly held by the end of the present year, whether his salary would remain the same, or whether the residue would be paid to Sir Garnet Wolseley? The right hon. Gentleman had mentioned that the expenses would be equally great; but it must be borne in mind, that the duties and responsibilities of the office would be infinitely less under the present arrangement.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHhad said that the arrangement made when Sir Garnet Wolseley was sent out must be looked upon as temporary in character. The question now asked was one which it was impossible for him to answer. Everything would depend upon events. He trusted to see Sir Garnet Wolseley soon complete the work which he had been sent out to do, when it would become necessary for the Government to decide how the Commissionership should in future be arranged; but it was impossible to make any statement upon the subject at that moment.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLinquired the reason why the salaries of the Lieutenant Governors of the Islands of St. Vincent, Grenada, and Tobago, which were not to be continued beyond the present year, were each £325 in excess of the amounts charged last year?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexplained that the apparent difference was merely a matter of account, and arose from the fact that these salaries were not to be continued beyond March, 1880. The change in question had made it necessary to include five quarters' salary instead of four.
    MR. RAMSAYasked why it was that the country had to pay £1,226 for charges under the head of Clergy in North America? He had understood some years ago when he was in Canada, that an arrangement had been made for the Colony to bear this expense. He confessed that the amount under the head of Missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel appeared to him to be quite uncalled for.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, this was not a Vote for the maintenance of the Church in Canada. When the former system was changed those persons who were officials in the service of the Crown had, of course, a right to have their vested interests reserved, and there had since been an annual Vote for their salaries, which was becoming gradually less.
    MR. WHITWELLtrusted that if the present High Commissioner for the Northern part of South Africa were recalled at the close of the war, Sir Bartle Frere would not, in consequence, act again as High Commissioner of Natal and the Transvaal. Was the Committee right in understanding that a fresh appointment of Sir Bartle Frere to Natal would not take place?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the question was one which it was quite impossible for him to answer.
    MR. RYLANDSremarked that the sum of £3,000 for the Pacific Island Commission appeared for the first time in the Estimates of this year. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee in what way this amount was expended?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexplained that the charge was for salaries and travelling expenses—the latter being a very important item of expenditure under the Pacific Islanders Protection Act.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) £1,770, to complete the sum for the Orange River Territory and St. Helena (Non-Effective Charges), agreed to.
    (6.) £1,120, to complete the sum for Suez Canal.
    MR. D. JENKINSagain called the attention of the Government to the charge for pilotage upon vessels passing through the Suez Canal. He found that this charge had not been reduced since

    1595
    he referred to the matter some two or three years ago. Ships passing through the Canal had now to pay 1,200 or 1,500 francs; although he knew for a fact that the Company only paid 75 francs to the pilots who had charge of them. He believed that if the Government were to bring this matter before the Commissioners this excessive charge would be reduced.
    MR. GOURLEYagreed with the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins) that the excessive charge for pilotage levied on ships passing through the Canal might very properly be brought before the Suez Canal Directors with a view to its reduction. He took the opportunity of asking what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Suez Canal? Was it to be regarded as international property; as Anglo-French property or as British property? If it was to be regarded as an international property, to be used by all countries, then, so far as England was concerned as a high road to India, it would, in his opinion, be comparatively useless in the event of war, and as such the Government should re-consider the question whether it would not be better to send their troops to India by the old route viâ the Cape of Good Hope. If, in the event of war, the Canal remained an international high road, our troops would have to be conveyed by large Fleets, and, in addition, it would be necessary to maintain another large Fleet at the entrance to the Canal to prevent our vessels from being molested. Seeing, therefore, that the route by the Cape was now almost as short, in point of time, as that by the Canal, he thought the Government would do well to review their policy in connection with this matter. The time occupied by troop-ships on the passage from England to Bombay, viâ the Canal, was now 31 days.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) that the Question before the Committee was the salaries and expenses of the three Representatives of Her Majesty's Government on the Council of Administration of the Suez Canal Company, and that the remarks of the hon. Member with reference to the route to India were not in Order.
    MAJOR NOLANreminded the hon. Member for Sunderland that troops used
    1596
    to be sent to India by way of Suez before the Canal was made.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONpointed out that the present Vote was taken only for the purpose of protecting British interests in the Canal. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins), he thought the question of pilotage might very properly be brought by the British Directors under the notice of the Board of Superintendence, and he had no doubt that they would do everything in their power to protect British interests. In answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley), he regarded the Suez Canal as a great commercial undertaking not confined to any particular nation, but, practically, for the benefit of the world at large.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury appeared to think that it was hardly right to raise a question in the House of Commons as to the manner in which the business of the Suez Canal was conducted. But he (Mr. E. Jenkins) apprehended that the whole business of the Canal came under the present Vote. We had a serious interest in this Canal, and it was surely proper that ship-owners in England should look to the Government to see that the interests of the country were fairly represented by the Directors. If these Directors were appointed merely for the purpose of registering the opinions of M. Lesseps, he could not see why the country had invested so large a sum of money in the Canal. The Committee had been told that this was done with the object of protecting British interests; but, from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, it had not appeared that British interests were protected at all. The pilotage dues, as the Committee well knew, fell heavily upon vessels passing through the Canal, and that in a larger proportion upon British vessels than upon those of any other nation; and it was surely competent for an hon. Member to rise and point out that serious injury was being done by the imposition of these heavy dues. If the Government could not do anything in the matter, then the public money had been wasted by the purchase of Suez Canal Shares. Although we were a great nation, and had so much money, we had no voice at all in the management. Of course, he expected, when

    1597
    Her Majesty's Government originally brought this matter forward, that they hoped to get the entire control of the Canal, that our interests would be secured there, and that we could at any time secure a road through it; but, so far as he could now see, the country had, so to speak, only thrown £4,000,000 sterling; into the Canal, for it appeared by the speech of the Under Secretary that we could do nothing whatever in the matter of protecting our interests. The hon. Gentleman had called the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Gourley) to account for bringing forward this question upon the present Vote, saying that the matter was irrelevant to the question before the Committee; but he (Mr. E. Jenkins) ventured to consider it as exceedingly relevant, and that Her Majesty's Government ought to instruct the Directors to make strong representations with respect to the pilotage dues, which weighed very heavily indeed upon British shipping.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) that his answer, with respect to the pilotage dues, had been that it was a subject which the Directors ought to bring before the Board of Direction, and that they would, no doubt, do everything in their power to protect British interests. The hon. Member had seen fit to remark upon the throwing of this £4,000,000 into the sea; but he would point out to the Committee that merely as a matter of finance that amount of money returned an ample interest to this country, and, therefore, even from a commercial point of view, it was certainly not right that it should go forth to the country that the money spent upon purchasing the Suez Canal Shares was unproductive, or that the money was absolutely thrown away.
    MR. D. JENKINScomplained that the charge made as pilotage went into the assets of the Company as tonnage dues; that the Company paid only 100 francs to the pilots, and charged the ship with 1,000 or 1,500 francs.
    MR. WHITWELLquite agreed with the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins) that the charges were excessive, and that British interests in this respect should be looked after. He objected to them—first, because they were high; secondly, because they fell heavier on
    1598
    the large number of British ships which, passed through the Canal; and, thirdly, because captains of vessels who had sailed in every sea were bound to take pilots on board so ignorant of the navigation that whenever a stoppage occurred it was entirely through them. He trusted the Secretary to the Treasury would send a recommendation to the Directors to look after the interests of our mail, steamers which had not that preference shown to them that they were entitled to.
    MR. A. GATHORNE-HARDYsaid, he had been through the Suez Canal, and his attention having been directed to the question of pilotage dues, he had, therefore, discussed the subject with the British Admiral in charge at Alexandria, who said that the dues were not excessive. He (Mr. A. Gathorne-Hardy) was far from saying that the question was not one deserving of attention.
    MR. RAMSAYthought that the pilotage was a very proper subject for the consideration of the Committee. But he rose chiefly to express his objection to the remarks of the Secretary to the Treasury in speaking of this Vote as being for the purpose of securing our interests in a very good commercial investment. When the House was asked to vote the sum of £4,000,000 for the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares the question was presented distinctly as one of policy. He had never expected that by the acquisition of those Shares we should acquire the right of Sovereignty over the soil. It was upon that very ground of having no Sovereign rights that he had objected to the £4,000,000 being voted. That the Government should enter into commercial transactions of any kind, whether they paid 5, 10, or any lesser sum per cent, he deprecated then, and did still. The matter had, however, been treated as a commercial investment, and the justification was that we had got a promise of 5 per cent.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, there could be no question that the charges did require especial watchfulness on the part of the Government. With regard to the British Admiral referred to by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. A. Gathorne-Hardy), the hon. Member was probably not aware that he was not serving the British Government. The officer in question must have been a servant of

    1599
    the Egyptian Government, as we had no Admiral at Alexandria.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLagreed with the view expressed by the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the Vote for the Directors of the Suez Canal. But, at the same time, it appeared to him that whereas the subject of the pilotage dues would be a proper one for the Directors to consider, the Committee should recollect that the Directors were not now appointed for the first time. Certainly, therefore, they ought to have looked into the matter before this time and obtained justice for British commerce. If there was any truth in the statement that the Company charged vessels with a much larger sum than they paid to the pilots, that was a fraud upon the British Government, because the subject of British vessels passing through the Canal had been the object of diplomatic consideration. The tonnage dues had been limited, and it therefore appeared to him that if the Company put into their pockets an undue amount under the name of pilotage it was really a fraud upon British commerce, and Her Majesty's Government should interfere and make vigorous representations upon the subject.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked for information as to the salaries of the non-resident Directors?
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKinquired the names of the Directors, and remarked that the sum charged for the Director resident in Paris was rather large. He thought, moreover, that the Directors should be paid by the Company.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Directors kept any records, and if Her Majesty's Government had any means of knowing whether they did any work?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, one of the Directors resided in Paris, where the Offices of the Board were situate. The other two Directors were Mr. Rivers Wilson, of the National Debt Office, and General Stokes. The Directors kept the Reports, which were sent to the Government, of the transactions of the Board. He thought the Committee would see that it was advisable that certain Commissioners should be resident in England, so that they might be in constant communication with the commercial world, and that this in
    1600
    no way interfered with the usefulness of their action on the Board.
    MR. RYLANDSthought that his hon. Friends expected from the British Directors a great deal more than they were likely to get. They seemed to imagine that they could, by their position on the Board, secure terms of an advantageous character with regard to the charges upon British ships. This pilotage left a large profit, which was distributed amongst the shareholders in the Company. But the shares held by this country did not carry with them a share of the profits; and, therefore, any representations which might tend to the reduction of the income of the Company coming from the British Directors would necessarily be looked upon with disfavour by the other Directors who represented shares which did participate in the profits of the Canal. The Committee had heard a good deal about Cyprus that evening; but this Suez Canal affair was about as absurd a business as it was possible to conceive. When the Government said this was a good investment he would like any man to be found who would guarantee that the Khedive of Egypt would repay to this country the money advanced on these shares. He did not know that the country had that confidence in Egypt to enable it to believe that the whole of the money would be received back in the way contemplated by Government. He did not anticipate, from the position which the Directors occupied on the Board, that the interests of Great Britain were likely to be promoted at all. The House voted the salaries of the Directors from year to year; but he should be glad to find out what they did in return.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKobserved, that the answer of the Government seemed to him to be eminently unsatisfactory. One of the resident Directors was the Controller of the National Debt, and had also held the position of Minister of Finance to the Khedive. It had been alleged that it was desirable that those Directors should reside in England, in order that Her Majesty's Government might know what was going on; but one of those resident Directors appeared to reside in Egypt. The position of that gentleman was, therefore, perfectly anomalous. In his opinion, it was the duty of Directors to do their best for the benefit of

    1601
    the shareholders; and in that respect again the English Directors appeared to be in an anomalous position. The whole matter was one which required further consideration before it again came before the Committee. He still thought that the salaries of Directors should be paid by the Company; but he did not divide against the Vote without having given previous Notice.
    MR. DODSONinquired the name of the Director who resided in Egypt and was also in the service of the Khedive?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Mr. Standen.
    MR. DODSONsupposed that Mr. Standen received pay as a British Director, and also as a Minister of the Khedive. He should like to know whether it was intended that that arrangement should be permanent?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that his absence in Egypt was only temporary, and he recived a salary from this country during the time of his absence.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £5,492, to complete the sum for the Suppression of the Slave Trade.
    MR. E. JENKINSasked why there was a Consul at Mozambique? He should also like to know what work that Consul did at Mozambique? He saw no justification for the appointment of a Consul at Mozambique; and he should like the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain to the Committee what that Consul did for his salary of £600 a-year.
    MR. GRAYobserved, that the Consul referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) apparently required the services of a chaplain.
    MR. BOURKEdid not know whether there was a chaplain at Mozambique or not.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought that the Consul at Mozambique was required in respect of the Slave Trade carried on in the Red Sea. He should like to know whether the efforts of the Consul extended to both sides of the Red Sea?
    MR. BOURKEsaid, that the Consul at Mozambique directed his exertions to the suppression of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea. His efforts were not confined to any port; but no port required and
    1602
    received more attention at his hands than Jeddah.
    MR. GOURLEYcould aver, from his own knowledge, that the Consul at Mozambique was extremely useful. The Channel at that point was extremely dangerous in respect of navigation, and, of course, the Consul of a country with so much commerce as Great Britain must, of necessity, be of great service. Then with reference to the suppression of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea, the Consul at Mozambique did great good. Many captures took place in the Mozambique Channel owing to the traffic in slaves that went on there. Owing to the fact that the Portuguese authorities were on one side and the French on the other side of the Channel, an English Consul was necessary, and rendered very valuable assistance. Great efforts were being made to suppress the Slave Trade in those parts; but, at the present moment, more slavery went on in the Mozambique Channel than on any other part of the African coast.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,247, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the Bum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for Tonnage Bounties, Bounties on Slaves, Costs of Captors, &c., and Expenses of the Liberated African Department."
    MR. GOURLEYbegged to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £5,000. He did so because he considered that the money was not required, and that there was already sufficient money to meet all expenses with reference to the capture of slavers by British vessels. At the present moment a very large sum of money stood to the credit of the account of naval prize money, and a large balance was transferred to the Consolidated Fund in 1865. Moreover, a very great decrease had taken place in the Slave Trade since the Treaty with the Sultan of Zanzibar. Two years ago the number of slaves captured in a year averaged from 500 to 1,000, but that number was now very much reduced. In consequence of the diminution in the Slave Trade a number of vessels employed in its suppression had been reduced; but, still, Parliament was asked to grant a

    1603
    sum of £10,000 in respect of the expenses connected with the suppression of the trade. He did not, however, rely so much upon the reduction in the number of slaves captured as upon the fact that there was a considerable amount of money in hand to meet those expenses. Under these circumstances, he thought that it was reasonable to ask the Government to reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000. There was another point connected with the Vote to which he should like to call attention—namely, the expenses incurred in respect of the maintenance of liberated Africans. In the present year the estimated charge of their maintenance was £3,102. They had no explanation how the charge arose, or how the money was spent for the liberated Africans. He thought that, instead of maintaining those persons, they ought to be sent to their own homes, or to some employment. There was no reason why liberated Africans should be permanently maintained at the expense of this country. Either the liberated Africans should find employment for themselves, or the Government should find it for them. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,247, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for Tonnage Bounties, Bounties on Slaves, Costs of Captors, &c, and Expenses of the Liberated African Department."—(Mr. Gourley.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the same sum was asked in that year for slave bounties as was granted last year, and was estimated upon what it was thought would be really wanted. It very often happened that payments had to be provided for which were not anticipated. He might tell the hon. Member that the amounts voted in previous years had been usually entirely spent. It might be that the amount now asked for would not be wanted during the current year, but it had to be provided for, and if not spent the amount would be paid back at the end of the financial year into the Exchequer; and, therefore, they provided for what might occur, and which, judging by the evidence of past years, they had a right to suppose might fairly
    1604
    occur. With regard to the question raised as to the maintenance of liberated Africans, the hon. Member would see that the expense in respect of those persons had diminished that year by the sum of £250, and the whole expense would be gradually wiped out.
    MR. GOURLEYdid not think that the large sum of money asked for under that Vote ought to be granted. The number of vessels employed in the suppression of the Slave Trade had been reduced; and as it was evident from that that the number of slaves captured must also be reduced, the same amount of money for incidental expenses could not now, as formerly, be required. Unless the Government would reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000 he should be prepared to divide the Committee.
    MR. CHILDERShoped the hon. Member would not take a division upon that Vote.
    MR. E. JENKINShoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the House, for it would be taken as an expression of feeling against the suppression of slavery, and he was sure that there was nothing upon which the country entertained so strong an opinion as upon that.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. WHITWELLobserved, that there was a small charge in the Vote in respect of St. Helena. He wished to know whether the Government would give them a statement of the income and expenditure of St. Helena, and also of Sierra Leone? He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies would give them a statement of those expenses, as had been done by some of his Predecessors.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwas afraid that he was unable at present to give the hon. Member the information he required.
    MR. WHITWELLwished to have a Paper, similar to that with which they were supplied last year, showing the income and expenditure of Sierra Leone.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHpromised to find out what was done last year, in order to comply, if possible, with the request of the hon. Member.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.

    CLASS VI.—SUPERANNUATION AND RE TIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER PURPOSES.
    (9.) £11,647, to complete the sum for Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland.
    MR. A. MOORErose to call the attention of the House to the case of the Female Orphan Home. They had been told that the Institution had existed since 1800, and that ever since that period it had been charged in the Estimates under an arrangement sanctioned by the Act of Union. He did not wish to cast any reflection upon the present Administration, who, of course, were not responsible for the item; but it seemed to him that, practically, the Vote was moved for under false pretences. That particular Vote was placed in the Votes as if it were under the management of the Board of Superintendence; whereas, in point of fact, the Board had no control over the Institution whatever. So much so was that the case, that there was a Parliamentary Paper relating to the Hospitals under the Board of Superintendence, and no mention was made whatever of that Institution. Before they passed that Vote he thought they should have some explanation of the legality of the charge, or, at least, that it should be explained. It professed to be done under the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 16; but, for his part, he could see no legality in the charge. He did not wish to prevent the money being voted; but he thought that if the money were to be granted the House had a perfect right to know how it was being spent in that Institution.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that some explanation was required with regard to that item in the Estimates. The other night he was asked why that item was included in this Vote, and he explained how it came to be placed in the Vote. It had occurred to him that, perhaps, the charge ought, properly, to have come under the head of Industrial Schools. He had communicated with the authorities in Dublin; and he had ascertained that what he had previously stated was accurate—namely, that the Vote depended upon the Act of Union. It had, however, only been placed in that particular Vote 10 years ago, when it was transferred from another Vote which had been discontinued, and the various items of which it consisted had been distributed amongst other Votes. He thought
    1606
    that, at the time the grants were made, they were intended for grants-in-aid. As a matter of fact, as the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was well aware, this question had been brought under the review of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and he had no doubt it would occupy a place in their Report. He did not know what would be the recommendations of the Commissioners; but, whatever they might be, they would receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
    MAJOR NOLANexpressed his admiration of the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had talked for four minutes, and yet he had given them no information whatever in regard to this Institution. He hoped the hon. and learned Member for Limerick would explain to them what all this meant.
    MR. GRAYsaid, since the discussion on Friday evening, he had had some communication with Dublin, and he found that the allegations of some speakers, that this was a proselytizing Institution, were not correct. He was bound to say that it was not; and also, according to his information, it was very well managed. He did not desire, therefore, to say anything at all against the Institution, although he might remark that it was purely sectarian, and that its advantages were confined to members of one religious denomination. He wished the Committee to notice that fact, because it showed that Parliament did not hesitate to make denominational grants. He, himself, approved of such grants, and wished they were further extended. The Chief Secretary had not dealt with the real source of the complaint—that this Vote was placed under a heading which had nothing at all to do with it, and that the section of an Act—19 & 20 Vict.—was quoted which did not affect it. That Act dealt with hospitals and infirmaries. The Chief Secretary said this was probably an hospital, and therefore, according to him, the little girls in the Home were patients. But what, the Act also required was, that the Institutions dealt with under it should be placed under the Board of Superintendence.
    MR. J. LOWTHERbegged pardon. He intended to state that this should, no doubt, have been placed under another head. He was afraid he had not made

    1607
    himself quite clear. What he stated was that the Vote was given in accordance with arrangements entered into at the time of the Union, and transfered to this Vote in consequence of the Report of a Commission about 10 years ago.
    MR. GRAYsuggested that the better way would be to strike this item out, and to bring it forward as a Supplementary Vote. But he did not think the matter was of very great importance.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYagreed that the Institution was very well managed, and was utterly devoid of any proselytizing tendencies. At the same time, the Vote was presented in a form in which it ought not to appear.
    MR. A. MOOREasked under what heading this Vote would be placed in the future? Further, if they granted this money in future years, under what inspection would the Home be placed? They had a perfect right to know what was done with the money, and that was a point he wished very strongly to impress on the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. J. LOWTHERreplied, that the whole subject would be fully considered before the Vote was asked of Parliament again, and, of course, the Report of the Royal Commission must be also considered; but he could not say under what head it would be included, or whether it would be again proposed at all; but it certainly should not appear in the Estimates again without being fully looked into.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, since this Vote was before the House last time, he had made some inquiries, and he found this Home was the first female orphanage established in Ireland. In the year 1790 it had a grant of £500 from the Irish Parliament. It was attached to a college or chapel at which, for a great many years, he had attended Divine Service; and he was bound to say there were no proselytizing practices carried on during the time he had the privilege of attending there. At the time of the negotiations for the Union, a stipulation was made that the Imperial Parliament should allow a grant of £500 per annum to this Institution, and he hoped nothing would be done now to disturb the arrangement.
    MR. GRAYpointed out that the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) was a very simple one. Either this Vote was
    1608
    sanctioned by 19 & 20 Vict., or it was not. If it was sanctioned by that Act, the Home should be under the Board of Superintendence. They had no right, if it was not, to vote the money under this head, and they could not get out of that dilemma; for, at present, the Home certainly was not under the Board of Superintendence. It was not a question of whereabouts in the Estimate to decide where the charge should go; but of deciding whether the Vote was sanctioned by an Act of Parliament. If it was not, by what right was it put in there?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that the question of the arrangement of the Estimates was gone into about 11 years ago, when the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) re-arranged them, and, at that time, placed this particular sum under this heading. He would merely submit that the heading referred generally only to the items appearing under it, and there were many Votes under those heads which were in no way affected by the particular Act quoted at the top. There were other cases in the same position, where Votes were not governed by the particular Act quoted at the heading, but by others. He quite agreed, as his right hon. Friend had said, that the placing of this Vote under this heading was misleading; and if his attention had been called to it before, he would have placed it in another place, so that any difficulty of this sort would not have occurred.
    MR. CALLANpointed out that on Friday—or, rather, at an unusually early hour on Saturday morning—the Attorney General for Ireland stated that this was one of the encumbrances handed over by the Irish Parliament to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that it was in consequence of specific statements in the Act that this Vote was taken. The Secretary to the Treasury had now made another statement, which did not at all corroborate that. He had made inquiry as to the Act, and he found that it was not based on any particular Act. The Secretary to the Treasury had said that there were other Votes in a similar position. He should like to ask which they were? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Next page.] Well, all this only showed how careless and negligent, if not utterly incompetent, the under-

    1609
    strappers of the right ton. Gentleman had been in preparing this Vote. ["No, no!"] He maintained it only showed how utterly negligent they were in placing it before the House; and he would suggest that, another year, the Secretary to the Treasury should direct his subordinates to place on the Paper the specification under which this Vote was taken.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONobserved, that this Vote had been continued ever since, and had been placed in this particular clause on re-arrangement of the Estimates by a Committee who sat to diminish the number of headings. He had already stated that the headings in no wise governed all the Votes under it; but as the heading in this case was of a misleading kind, he would take care the change was made. He must protest distinctly against the accusation made against the very able clerks in the Department with which he was connected. Nothing could be more careful than the way in which the Estimates were prepared, and every desire was shown to give every possible information.
    MR. RAMSAYthought some misapprehension had arisen, from the fact that some hon. Members had assumed that all sums voted in Committee of Supply must have statutory authority. That was an entire misapprehension, and the majority of the sums voted were voted without any authority other than the authority of the House, and they did not recognize any authority higher than that.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was under no mistake, and did not suppose any such thing. Fortunately, he was well aware that such a safeguard was not required. What he maintained was, that on Saturday morning the Attorney General for Ireland stated that the Vote was proposed under an undertaking given at the time of the Union. He now wished the right hon. and learned Gentleman to point out the page on which such an undertaking was mentioned, which gave the House the authority in support of his assertion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would relieve them of a difficulty by replying: although he did not, for his part, see why they should vote this money, when they did not vote £500 for places of other denominations.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he
    1610
    would be very happy to help the hon. Member out of the difficulty. [Mr. CALLAN: No; the House.] Well, or the House. He thought, when attention was directed to this matter by the hon. Member for Clonmel, explanations were given by his hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Treasury, who was enabled, from the documents in his possession, to give a very considerable amount of information to the Committee on the subject. It appeared that this Vote, from a time long antecedent to the Union, was granted—first, by the old Irish Parliament, and was continued ever since the Union. He thought that was mainly the manner in which the reference to the Union came out, and that there was no dogmatic or positive assertion made. As to the assertion that there was any agreement which would prevent Parliament from saying they would not vote the money, he did not think that was for a moment suggested. The fact that this was on the Votes was proof that Parliament was quite competent to accept it or not; and it could terminate the grant either this year or next year, or could re-consider the whole matter, and deal with it in any way it thought proper. As he understood, the hon. Member for Clonmel objected more to the form than to the substance of the Vote, and his contention was that it ought not to come under this particular head. As a matter of law, it was not necessary that the Act under which the money would be dealt with should be stated in the heading; it was merely put there for the information of the House; and there was obviously now no misconception on the subject, and everything was known about this Home. The funds, and the character of its work, would be investigated before the Committee now sitting, and the result would be available in the next Session of Parliament. He thought they might now pass this Vote.
    MR. A. MOOREdid not desire to press this matter further, because his whole object in bringing it forward was to show that, whereas this Home appeared to be under the governance of the Board of Superintendence, as a matter of fact they had no authority at all over it. He believed that proselytizing was not practised in the Institution, therefore he should be sorry that the Vote should be further objected to; and he merely

    1611
    thought it ought to be put under proper inspection, and that some guarantee should be given that the money would not be spent without inspection. He was quite content with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. GRAYwas also thoroughly content that the Vote should pass, now that the Committee thoroughly understood its nature. They were informed that they were bound by a clause in the Act of Union, and the Attorney General for Ireland would probably recall that fact to his mind. They now found that they were bound by no clause of any sort, and that this was purely a voluntary Vote. He was quite willing to join in a Vote to a purely denominational school, hoping to use that Vote as an argument by-and-bye. He sought for aid for denominational Institutions of this kind; and he hoped, therefore, hon. Gentlemen who joined in this Vote for an Institution without a "conscience" clause, or provision of any kind, would not refuse grants to well-managed institutions of a similar sort because they belonged to another religion.
    MR. P. MARTINwas very glad of the discussion, because of the facts which had been elicited. Here they had a Vote of money to a purely Protestant Institution over which there was no Government control. He asked hon. Members to bear that in mind when they next heard taunts against Catholics for coming to that House and asking for grants for educational purposes, as to the due application of which they had been willing to submit to the most stringent Government supervision. Yet, though the majority in that House had so recently refused to sanction payment by results, or any grants in aid of Catholic Collegiate training, year after year they had passed a Vote of this character for a Protestant Orphan Home in Dublin. It was not creditable to the liberality of those hon. Gentlemen, who professed themselves opposed to any application of the public funds to denominational purposes in Ireland, to say that an examination of these Votes would show not a single shilling given to relieve the sharp pressing needs of the majority of the population, while there were many sums bestowed out of the Consolidated Fund each year to purely Protestant purposes, without any supervision or check.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I will remind the hon. Member of Cree Roman Catholic Schools.
    MR. P. MARTINreplied, that the hon. Member for Tyrone was under a misapprehension. This school, it had been admitted, was not an industrial school, or under any Government supervision, nor was it under the Reformatory Acts.
    MR. MACARTNEYobserved, that he said that the House would have objection to see all schools under Government supervision.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £123,944, Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiency.
    MR. E. W. HARCOURThoped the noble Lord the Postmaster General would be able to give some assurance that the Government would turn their attention towards the important question of the increase of Post Office Savings Banks. The matter involved the interest of many millions of people in the country; and he trusted next Session to find a more auspicious moment for bringing it forward than had been accorded to him during the present Session.
    LORD JOHN MANNERScould safely say that, as long as he had been in Office, his attention had been turned to this subject. In addition to the 6,000 Savings Banks, there was the Penny Banks movement, which was making great and satisfactory progress. He believed there were about 2,000 of these banks in existence; and, besides that, there were upwards of 1,100 School Banks. All these were regarded by the authorities as excellent allies, working cordially and harmoniously together. His attention had been constantly directed to the extension of the system, and everything that tended in that direction should always have his most careful regard.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £2,544, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.
    MR. CALLANthought there must be an error with reference to the amount allowed to one of the American pensioners for services rendered at the time of the Declaration of Independence. He also asked who were the refugee French

    1613
    clergy alluded to in the Vote, and what right they had to receive money from the House of Commons?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the name of the American referred to in the Vote was Macdonald, who was in receipt of a pension of £11. He was a man of very considerable age; and although alive at the present time, he could not be expected to enjoy the Vote for any length of time. There seemed to be a discrepancy with regard to the matter of the French refugee clergy, and he would make inquiry into this, giving an accurate account of the transaction upon Report.
    MR. CALLANasked that the Vote should be postponed, or reduced by the sum of £10. He did not see why they should support the descendants of French refugees.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had already made known, on the part of the Treasury, that they intended to re-consider these Votes.
    MR. COURTNEYexplained that the Vote was for the stipend of two teachers attached to the French Chapel, where service was performed every Sunday in the French tongue. It might very well be that this Vote should by-and-bye cease, perhaps after the death of the present recipients.
    MR. CALLANexpressed himself grateful to the secular Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) for his explanation; and trusted that, having defended this Vote, he would not come down to the House on his secular hobbyhorse and repudiate Votes on Irish topics.
    MR. WHITWELLasked whether there was any possibility of commuting the pension which appeared by the Votes to have been in existence since the time of Charles II? He thought, if it could be commuted on any terms whatever, it ought to be done. He could understand how it was that this pension was not commuted, when the coal dues, on which it was settled, were taken over by the City.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdid not know that there was any power of commutation in respect of this pension without the assent of the parties, the sum having been granted by Letters Patent, and forming a first charge on the Revenue. The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been taken,
    1614
    and they held that there was no power of commutation.
    Vote agreed to.
    (12.) £2,802, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, with reference to the item for the Protestant clergyman of the French Church at Portarlington, that up to about 35 years ago the French Protestant service was held at that place; but the clergyman now only discharged the ordinary duties of the Protestant Church, which, as it had been disestablished in Ireland would, he thought, render it impossible that this Vote should be retained. No doubt, the clergyman had a kind of vested interest, which he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) would not like to disturb; but the Government should take care that there was no new appointment.
    MR. J. LOWTHERagreed with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) upon this Vote. Of course, the House of Commons was always desirous that vested interests should be respected; but he confessed that a case had been made out that the appointment should not be renewed.
    MR. CALLANasked when the Report would be brought up with reference to the Superannuation Allowances to Prison Officials, so that the Committee might know when they would have an opportunity to discuss the matter?
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it had already been reported.
    MR. CALLANasked for an explanation of the item of £3,000 for Charitable Allowances. He did not think this sum should be voted without knowing what it was for.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was for persons in distress, and was analogous to the Royal Bounty.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS, SPECIAL, AND TEMPORARY OBJECTS.
    (13.) £19,076, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions, agreed to.
    (14.) £5,086, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Expenses, agreed to.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  (15.) £806,258, to complete the sum for Customs, agreed to.
  (16.) £1,582,125, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHasked whether any new system had been adopted of collecting Income Tax, for there was a large increase in the poundage?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied that the poundage was paid, as before, on the amount collected; but as the Income Tax was now 5d., of course the poundage had increased.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHobserved, that that did not explain the increase, which was very considerable. It was not possible in that way to understand how it had gone up from £26,000 for 3d. to £70,000 for 5d.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONanswered, that there was no difference made in the payment of collectors. The Estimate was based on the grant of last year. He had made every inquiry into the matter at the time, because it struck him that there was a very large increase in the poundage; and he was assured by the officer of the Inland Revenue Office in charge of the matter that the amount of the increase was due to this cause.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, surely that would not explain an increase from £26,000 to £70,000.
  MR. WHITWELLobserved, that there was also a very large increase in the Supplementary Estimate.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,806,825, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
  MR. GRAYwished to know whether it was the system to confiscate savings that had been deposited in two accounts by some persons? He believed the Post Office Savings Banks realized some small profit; and, therefore, there was no excuse for dealing harshly with depositors, who were, of course, for the most part,
  1616
  of the poorest class, and were probably not aware of the various regulations under which the Department existed. He had put the question in reference to a case which had been mentioned to him before; but he would now ask something about the matter, not having anticipated that this Vote would give it so soon. He wished to know whether, if a depositor violated the rule that two accounts should not be opened by one person, whether the Post Office had the power to confiscate all his savings? The case which had been brought to his knowledge was that of a farm labourer, who had deposited with the Post Office the savings of a life's labour, amounting to about £100. Part of the money was deposited in his own town, and the other at another, some few miles off. After his death his relatives attempted to take some of it out, in order to pay the expenses of his funeral, and then the Department discovered that he had kept two accounts. According to his information, the money was absolutely confiscated; and on an appeal being made to the Treasury, the reply was that they should allow matters to take their course. If his information were correct, the Government had confiscated the entire savings of this poor man, and left his family without any means of subsistence. The noble Lord would be able to tell them, at any rate, whether this system existed, even if he were not acquainted with the facts of this particular case; and, if it did—which he could scarcely believe—the Government would certainly find their labours in Ireland very much lightened.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied, that the law was very much as the hon. Gentleman had stated, and, of course, his Department was bound to obey the law. The case was brought under his notice by two hon. Members from Ireland not very long since, and he then found that the matter had occurred more than a year ago. The procedure was as follows:—The Solicitor to the Treasury had his attention called to it, and was asked to express his opinion on it in writing. If he reported that these double accounts were opened in error, then the money was not confiscated, but returned. If the Solicitor stated that, in his opinion, there was fraud-in the transaction, then the law took its course. Two hon. Gentlemen, one the hon.

  1617
  Member for Wexford (Mr. O'Clery), had called about the case. They had been referred to the Treasury, and, he apprehended, it was now undergoing inquiry.
  MR. GRAYbegged to move that the Vote be reduced by £100. What was the fraud for which this money was confiscated? The Government took deposits from poor people, giving them only a low rate of interest—2½ per cent—and then invested the money they received at a much higher rate, principally lending it to local bodies, and making 3½ and 4 per cent. By these means, after paying all the costs of management, they made a considerable profit from the business. What, then, was the conceivable amount of fraud that this man had perpetrated by opening two accounts? He had simply induced the Post Office to take a little more money than they otherwise would have had, and so they made a little more profit. Was that a sufficient justification for making a charge of fraud? He could not bring himself to use the word. They might call it a trick or a subterfuge, in order to get a greater amount deposited than the Government accepted. Was that conduct sufficient to justify the confiscation of the entire capital sum? The bare statement of facts needed no elaboration from him. He thought they were simply appalling. The expression used would be applied by the people of Ireland, not to the depositor who had lost his money, but to the persons who had taken it from him. He would certainly take the opinion of the Committee on the subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,806,725, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post office Revenue."—(Mr. Gray.)
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the hon. Gentleman hardly understood the statement of the noble Lord in answer to his question. There was no power in the Department to do anything of this kind. It was simply a question of carrying out an Act of Parliament. The Act of Parliament sanctioned the Post Office Savings Banks,
  1618
  in order, he supposed, to prevent interference with the ordinary banks of the country, and limited deposits to a certain sum. Under that Act, any attempt to open two accounts in the same name was considered a fraudulent transaction, and rendered the account liable to be confiscated. If this were proved to be a fraudulent transaction, forfeiture was necessary also, for otherwise persons might have a great many accounts open in different Post Offices, and give great trouble. If any alteration was required, it must be by means of a new Savings Banks' Bill, allowing an increase in the amount deposited.
  MR. GRAYreplied, that he did not misunderstand at all. He did not state that the Department had power to make restitution of this money, because, as to that, he accepted the explanation of the noble Lord. What he did state was that the Government, as represented by this Department, had confiscated the money, and that he represented as grievously unjust. The Treasury had power to return this money, and they did not exercise it. It was not with reference to a particular case, the details of which he had not been able fully to bring before the House, and which the noble Lord had not had time to examine, that he intended to move this reduction, but as a protest against the whole system. The opening of an account might be a fraud technically, and according to an Act of Parliament; but, he contended, it was a fraud in no sense of depriving a person of money, and he contended it was not a fraud deserving of anything like the punishment meted out. He would, therefore, take the earliest possible opportunity of taking the opinion of the Committee on the general question of whether such a policy was desirable. He was positive the people of Ireland did not know they could be treated in this way; and he was sure the Government would find very little difficulty in dealing with the Post Office Savings Banks in Ireland in the future, in consequence of a considerable reduction in the number of deposits. Yet so strongly did he feel on the subject, that he certainly would raise the question in a more formal shape on another occasion.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the law was that when a depositor opened an account at the bank all these rules were

  1619
  made known to him. If he was illiterate, it was incumbent on the Postmaster to read and explain to him the rules. He had no reason to believe that this was not done in the present case, but, on the contrary, he had reason to believe that it was; therefore, he thought that, even when this case became known, the people generally would not follow the course suggested by the hon. Member, because the rules and regulations which now existed had been enforced ever since the Savings Bank was founded, and until this particular case he had never heard any complaint.
  MR. MELDONthought it was very much to be deprecated that the noble Lord opposite and the Secretary to the Treasury should thus brand a dead man with fraud. He was amazed to hear the noble Lord opposite state that the Solicitor to the Treasury had branded this case as fraudulent. He would challenge either the noble Lord or the Secretary to the Treasury to show how such a statement could be defended, and to point out where the fraud was. There was no such thing as a fraud in this case. The man might have acted in contravention of the Act of Parliament; and it might be necessary, for the public good, to act harshly in a special case, taken expressly for the purpose, and not interfering with the existing business of the Banks and Institutions. If a man chose to make deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks all over Ireland, he could quite understand that serious mischief might arise, and that the infliction of a fine might become necessary. Was a poor unfortunate man like this—a farm-labourer—to have the whole of his life-long savings forfeited without the slightest reason or necessity? They were told that it was the invariable practice to refer these matters to the Solicitor to the Treasury, to report whether an action was fraudulent or not, and if he reported that it was, these monies were confiscated. Such a thing as this ought to be known to the country, and it would most certainly bring the Post Office Savings Banks into disrepute. He could quite understand when there were duplicate accounts they might fairly refuse to pay interest on the second; but, under the circumstances stated by the noble Lord and the Secretary to the Treasury, to brand the conduct of the deceased man as fraudulent, and to for-
  1620
  feit the entire property of his family, he had no hesitation in declaring to be a scandal.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he must indignantly protest against such language. An Act of Parliament had been passed. That Act limited the amount any particular depositor should be allowed to deposit; and it stated that if a person deposited more than that in another account—that was, if the fraudulent intention was proved—the amount should be forfeited. That was done in order to prevent what had been referred to. He did not wish to enter into this particular case, because he did not know the facts; but he could answer for it that it had been gone into most carefully by the Solicitor to the Treasury. That gentleman always inquired most carefully into the circumstances to see whether the depositor, having got one deposit, had taken out another with full knowledge of the rule; and if he considered the fraudulent intention proved, he could only follow the Act of Parliament. The only difficulty was as to the fraudulent intention or not. But he ventured to say all cases were so construed. He, in his office of Secretary to the Treasury, only acted with a view to carrying out the Act of Parliament; and he did not see how any Government could be carried on if its actions in carrying out an Act were to be called a scandal.
  MR. CALLANsaid, there must be some impression on the mind of the Secretary to the Treasury or the Postmaster General. The Secretary to the Treasury had stated that this money was confiscated under the Act of Parliament, while the Postmaster General put forward the justification of some rules, in very small print, attached to the book which was handed to the depositors. What was fraud? Surely it was taking, by some device or misrepresentation, money that could not be otherwise obtained. That was the ordinary sense and meaning of the word in the ordinary moral sense, though not, perhaps, in the legal sense. He thought the whole thing was a scandal; and, as a man of the world, he would repeat it certainly was a scandal.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I rise to Order.
  MR. CALLAN: If the Secretary to the Treasury wished to make any remarks he could do so after he (Mr.

  1621
  Callan) had sat down. He certainly should not give way. Such conduct was a scandal to any public Department. This money had got into the insatiable maw of the Treasury, which never disgorged anything it had received; and in order to meet the great expenditure of the Zulu War and the Afghan Campaign, they were ready to gather money in every way that was justified by law—he was going to say by honour. As to this case—here was a poor, illiterate agricultural labourer, who, not having been accustomed to large sums of money, did not bank at the Bank of England or Ireland, but took his little savings to the Post Office. The Act of Parliament did not say that if a man lodged two different sums in that bank, under different names, it should be confiscated; but if he lodged it in the same name, it was left to the Solicitor to the Treasury to say whether he were guilty of fraud or not. Surely the House was as capable of judging of fraud as the Solicitor to the Treasury. They were told that if a man lodged the money ignorantly it would not even be a legal fraud; and he should certainly suppose this labourer did deposit his money ignorantly. Only very recently the Master of the Rolls in Ireland had denounced a bill of sale as a scandal, as a disgrace, and as an act which should be censured and put down by the strong arm of the law, because the conditions were printed on it in small print, not easily read by those who ran. Surely he would use much stronger language with regard to this action on the part of the Government. They had not the slightest proof that these rules were read, or that the Postmaster explained them. He hoped his hon. Friend would have met in some other spirit this mere puerile allegation of fraud; and that, sooner than proceed in this way, the Postmaster General and the Secretary to the Treasury would consent to refer the whole question to the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, in order that this matter might be inquired into, and the money returned to this unfortunate man. It would smooth matters, and would not put them to the expense of a 20 minutes' Division, with the probability of a very angry discussion afterwards.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. Gentleman had not paid sufficient attention to what he had said. The hon.
  1622
  Members for the county and the borough of Wexford had brought this case before him some little time ago; and, having looked into it, he found that it had passed out of his control to that of the Treasury. He, therefore, advised the hon. Member to go to the Treasury and see if the case could be re-opened. He had not heard from either of the hon. Gentlemen since, and, therefore, did not know what the result was. He thought, however, it would be better to leave the case in the hands of those who had originally taken it up.
  MR. GRAYsaid, the case came from his own county of Tipperary; and, therefore, it appeared as if this process of confiscation was general. The Post Office, it appeared, made considerable profit out of the Savings Banks, amounting in all to £20,000 a-year; but he had some hesitation in challenging this Vote by moving a reduction, because it might be thought he was taking a Division on the merits of this particular case, and he did not wish that should be so. He had not yet had an opportunity of going fully into the case, but perhaps the Chief Secretary might consider the matter; and, therefore, he thought it better and fairer to the Committee to withdraw the Amendment he had moved. Either on Report, or some distinct Motion, he would generally raise the question of whether it was advisable to enforce these terrible punishments.
  MR. COURTNEYobserved, that even in looking through the Act he did not find any powers there to confiscate money in this way. Probably, therefore, this act had been done under some rules framed in pursuance of the Act, and laid before Parliament in the ordinary way. He did not rise to continue the discussion on that point, for it seemed to him to be a matter which should be discussed at another time in the day. He did desire, however, to call the attention of the Committee to the organization of this Department, which seemed to him to be most cumbrous and expensive. [" Order, Order! "] He was going to move to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that, as the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) has asked permission to withdraw his Amendment, that it would be more convenient to have that withdrawn, and then to enter on this discussion. The hon.

  1623
  Member was probably under the impression that the Amendment had been withdrawn.
  MR. COURTNEYreplied that, in his opinion, it would be more convenient to report Progress before leaving the Amendment before the House. It was impossible to discuss the question of the organization of the Post Office at that time in the night; but he thought hon. Members present would be surprised to learn that the cost of every single transaction was over 8d. [Lord JOHN MANNERS: A little under 8d.] If the noble Lord would look at page 27 of his own Report, he would find a statement there that the average cost to the Post Office of every deposit withdrawn was, in the year 1877, 8 1/10 d.; so that it was over 8d. for the whole period. It had been 6⅓d., and there was an explanation why the charge had been increased.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the hon. Member for Tipperary has asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. It is in accordance with the practice of the Committee to speak only to that Amendment, until the Question is decided. When it is withdrawn, he will be in Order to make his observations.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. COURTNEYdid not propose to enter into any discussion, and only wished to point out why they ought to report Progress. It seemed to him too absurd that the cost of each transaction should be 8 1/10 d. If ordinary banks had to pay that, they could never carry on business. He wished to point out how that might be reduced, and also how the operations of the banks might be extended so that they might be established wherever Money Order Offices existed. He begged to move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  MR. MELDONdid not wish to interpose in this discussion; but he did wish to protest against the language made use of by the Secretary to the Treasury on the conduct described by his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary. The
  1624
  Secretary to the Treasury spoke of the person making the two deposits as acting fraudulently, and as showing a fraudulent intention. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON dissented.] He understood the hon. Gentleman to say so, and he was only too glad if he would disclaim the intention. He challenged him and the Postmaster General to point out how such conduct could be fraudulent. The Act of Parliament even did not give power to confiscate this money, and there ought, certainly, to be no declaration that conduct of this kind was fraudulent merely upon rules framed by the Post Office. He challenged the hon. Gentleman to prove this language; and when this Vote came on again he hoped they would have some explanation of such a charge.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Motion would be withdrawn, on condition that this Vote was postponed. He was very anxious to get on with the other Votes, in order to include specifically the Votes of Supply. He would not enter further into the dispute as to whether he did or did not use the words imputed to him. What he intended to convey was, that an Act of Parliament having laid down certain conditions, an attempt, with a knowledge of that Act of Parliament, to frustrate those conditions, was a fraud on the Act of Parliament.
  MR. COURTNEYhad no objection, on this decision, to withdraw his proposal.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (17.) £574,725, to complete the sum for Post Office Packet Service, agreed to.
  (18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £834,528, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Major O'Beirne.)
  MR. GRAYwished to direct the attention of the Government to a subject he

  1625
  had already brought under their notice—namely, the discontent which existed in the Dublin Offices amongst the Post Office clerks at the injustice to which they were subjected in the matter of salaries. They had already called attention last year to this matter by Memorial, and he then pointed out that it was never forwarded to London until he called attention to the matter. He saw by the newspapers that in the last two or three days the Post Office clerks in Dublin had met to consider their grievances, and it was then stated that a second Memorial had been addressed to the noble Lord, which had not elicited any reply. The noble Lord promised him last year that the matter should have his careful attention, but no relief had yet been accorded. The complaint was that the work in Dublin was just as hard, and required as skilled manipulation, as any city in the Empire; a statement which he could testify from his own knowledge, having had some experience of the amount of work done, in a very limited time, and which was paid on a lower scale, not merely than in London, but in other towns, such as was paid to the clerks in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, and all the principal provincial towns of England and Scotland. These clerks had the same work as the clerks in London, and must be their equals in skill; for, of course, in transmitting messages, if they did not have as good a clerk at one end as at the other, they lost the advantages of the skill of the first. He found that second-class clerks in London began at £200, rising to £300; while second-class clerks in Dublin began at £90, rising to £300; while clerks in the fourth class in London began at a higher rate than the second-class clerks in Dublin. There was another matter to which he might call attention, which the clerks thought might injure them, or be to their detriment. Recently, their names had been changed by a Circular from "telegraph clerks" to "telegraphists." An Act of Parliament provided for the superannuation and pensions stipulated for when the telegraphs were transferred; and these clerks feared that the Circular changing their name was intended to deprive them of some benefit which they would have secured under the Act. The men complained, also, that they had an enormous
  1626
  deal of extra work on Sundays, and that they were kept continuously at work long over hours. Of course, they were paid extra for that; but the work was more than they were physically able to perform, and the extra pay did not compensate for the loss of health contingent on the work. He trusted this matter would not require very much more consideration from the noble Lord, and that he would do something like justice to these clerks; and he trusted, also, that the agitation of these men would not bring on them any kind of punishment, of which they stood in considerable dread.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he would readily give the last assurance asked for by the hon. Member. With respect to the general status of these clerks, the principle he wished to lay down, speaking generally, was that the clerks in Dublin should be on the same footing as those in Edinburgh. The capital was always regarded as different to other places. He would communicate to the hon. Member, as soon as possible, the result of his inquiries, and of certain communications which were now passing between the Treasury and himself on this matter.
  MR. M. BROOKSasked, if the rates in Edinburgh at present were greater than those in Dublin? He knew the wages paid were some 40 or 50 per cent below those paid in London; and if the clerks did not get a rise, it would be very poor consolation to them that they got the same as was paid at Liverpool and Manchester. He should be very glad to hear the noble Lord say that they should be put on a level with the men in London.
  MR. DILLWYNthought it was a very odd principle to pay clerks according to the place where they were working. They surely ought to pay according to the efficiency of their work.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    (19.) £490, to complete the sum for Endowed Schools Commissioners, Ireland, agreed to.
    (20.) £1,739, to complete the sum for the National Gallery of Ireland, agreed to.
    (21.) £1,500, to complete the sum for the Royal Irish Academy, agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [28th July] reported.
  First Resolution agreed to.
  Second Resolution postponed.
  Six following Resolutions agreed to.
  Ninth Resolution postponed.
  Postponed Resolutions to be taken into Consideration upon Thursday.

  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 256.]
  (Mr. James Lowther, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland).
  MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 256.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MAJOR NOLANasked what was the meaning of the Bill? He had read it to the end, and could not understand it. It was simply a repetition of previous Acts, and he did not know what its object was at all.
    MR. J. LOWTHERreplied, that it was found that the municipal arrangements of Ireland were not subject to the last Act which governed the rest of the United Kingdom. It was merely an Act to remove doubts.
    MR. GRAYobserved, that this Bill was merely an extension of a very useful Act passed in 1875, which was believed to extend to Ireland, and which on that belief had been acted on in Ireland. Owing, however, to a question which arose in a recent election for the Dublin Corporation, which was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, it was discovered that the Act under which they had been carrying on their elections did no textend to Ireland. This Bill proposed to extend it.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow,

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS (IRELAND) [REPAYMENT OF ADVANCES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of any deficiency in the Pension Fund which may arise in the repayment to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt of any Advances made by them for the purposes of any Act of the present Session for improving the position of the Teachers of National Schools in Ireland."
  MR. COURTNEYasked, whether the Secretary to the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered the point raised by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers), as to whether this money was to be repaid to the Consolidated Fund? His right hon. Friend gave reasons why that form of repayment should not be adopted.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not very much in favour of the suggestion that these charges should be placed on the Votes, as he was afraid they would be more likely to lead to extravagance than economy. It would be far better to keep to the present arrangement.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he would take advantage of the opportunity to ask the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) whether he would withdraw his opposition to the National School Teachers Bill, so that it might not come on at a late hour? He had received several letters from the National teachers in Ireland hoping this Bill would become law this Session; and as a Notice given by the hon. Member prevented the Bill coming on before half-past 12, it might have the effect of stopping it altogether, or, at any rate, of preventing it from being properly discussed.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported To-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  COPYRIGHT (No. 2) BILL.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in moving that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring

  1629
  in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Copyright, said, the Bill contained all the recommendations of the recent Royal Commission on the subject, with the exception of two—that registration should be removed from Stationers' Hall and undertaken by a Government Department, and the abolition of the privilege of free copies to the Universities and Advocate's Library at Edinburgh. With these two exceptions, all the main recommendations of the Commission would be found in a Code on the subject. The Bill was introduced, not with the object of becoming law this Session, but that it might be circulated during the Recess, not only at home, but in the Colonies.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Copyright.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord JOHN MANNERS, Viscount SANDON, and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 265.]

  IRISH CHURCH ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. PLUNKET,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend "The Irish Church Act, 1869," and to provide further compensation to certain persons, being Priests and Deacons of the late Established Church of Ireland, said, the Bill would not at all challenge the general policy of the Irish Church Act, or in any respect re-endow the Irish Church. Its provisions simply aimed at redressing a grievance felt very severely by certain clergy of that Church. It was complained that although the Act did profess not to treat with harshness or severity individual clergymen, and professed to give them full compensation, yet that it failed to make provision for the loss they had suffered in being deprived of all hope of preferment. Amendments in this respect were brought forward at the time of the passing of the Act through the House, but the arguments in favour of these proposals were rather evaded than met. At all events, the Act did not contain any such provisions, and the object of his Bill was to introduce provisions remedying that
    1630
    grievance. By its clauses any incumbent or curate who believed himself aggrieved would be entitled to present a Memorial to the Irish Church Commissioners, and they would be required to entertain that Memorial, and bear in mind any amounts that might have been paid previously. Then, if they thought the Memorial well-founded, they would redress the grievance out of the surplus. This proposal made a very small demand on the Church surplus indeed, in comparison with others already submitted, or about to be submitted, to the House. He thought only about £300,000 or £400,000 would be required; and the Committee, whom he represented, were quite willing, if necessary, to agree that the total sum to be expended in this way should be limited to £500,000. He did not intend, either, that this Bill should conflict with the passing of the National School Teachers (Ireland) Bill. He rather desired, if he might use the expression, that they should run side by side; and, if the House co-operated, he trusted that both these Bills might pass that Session, late as the time now was.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he would not oppose the first reading of this Bill; but it was only to be expected he should look at it with a certain amount of natural hesitation. He remembered reading in the Conservative organ of Dublin, The Daily Express, at the time when the Chief Justiceship was vacant, and that paper was urging the claims of Mr. Whiteside, that it said that Protestants should look rather kindly on his promotion to that post, because he construed the Church Act liberally; whereas if he had construed it harshly the incumbents of the Irish Church would have got £1,000,000 less than they received. That seemed to him very strong evidence that the Act had not been harshly construed. He knew very well the incumbents in the town in which he lived were not harshly treated, and it was their opinion also. Although they spoke very strongly against the Bill, they admitted that its provisions were extremely liberal. Indeed, he believed that a number of the junior clergy only entered the Irish Church in order to obtain compensation. He could not allow that this Bill went on all fours with his. He had no objection to it as it stood; although he thought there should be some accompanying advantage introduced for other denomi-

    1631
    nations. When they came to ask for £500,000 it was a very serious matter for any one denomination to claim.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the noble Lord the Postmaster General had just introduced a Bill merely for the purpose of circulating it during the Recess. If the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Plunket) had introduced this Bill for the same purpose he should have no objection to it; but, at the beginning of August, it was utterly impossible that a measure of this kind could receive the consideration it ought to have at the hands of the House. He did not like, in courtesy to the hon. and learned Member, to oppose the first reading; but he hoped no attempt would be made to press it at that period of the Session.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, the Bill would, when understood, have the support of a large number of Members on both sides of the House, and of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan).
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to amend "The Irish Church Act, 1869," and to provide further compensation to certain persons, being Priests and Deacons of the late Established Church of Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DAVID PLUNKET, Sir ARTHUR GUINNESS, Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, Mr. EWART, and Mr. KAVANAGH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 266.]

  UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) (NO. 2)

    FELLOWSHIPS, &C. PENSIONS, &C.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the charge for the creation of Exhibitions, Scholarships, Fellowships, and other prizes, and of the erection of suitable buildings in connection with the University; also of retiring Pensions to any officers of the Queen's University who may be deprived of their office under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to promote the advancement of learning, and to extend the benefits connected with University Education in Ireland.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  PUBLIC OFFICES (FEES) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to provide for the collection, either in money or by stamps, of Fees payable in Public Offices, ordered to be brought in by Sir Henry SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill266.]

  LOUGH ERNE AND RIVER (CONTINUANCE) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to grant further time for proceeding with the execution of works for improving the navigation of the Lough and River Erne, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. JAMES LOWTHER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 267.]

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill for further amending the Acts relating to the raising of Money by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEOUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 268.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Knightsbridge and other Crown Lands* (166).
Report—New Forest Act (1877) Amendment* (149); Bills of Sale (Ireland)* (155).
Third Reading—Conveyancing and Land Transfer (Scotland) Act (1874) Amendment* (141), and passed.

CANAL BOATS ACT, 1878.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that he rose to ask a Question on a subject of some interest. It had been ascertained that no fewer than 100,000 persons were living in canal boats, and in 1877 an Act was passed with the view of improving the sanitary and educational position of these people. It was now said that, whereas a great deal had been done under that Act to improve the sanitary arrangements of the boats, the educational part of the Act of 1877 had not yet been carried into effect. There was, of course, a great difficulty in regard to the educational portion of the subject. The Act provided that the children en the boats should be considered as belonging to the local board district at which the boat was registered; but it was no easy matter to catch those children, because, if you tried to find them at one place, you would discover that they had moved off somewhere else. It was, therefore, to be feared that very little progress had been made in their education. It would be satisfactory to learn that vigorous efforts were

  1521
  being made in respect both of the sanitary arrangements of the boats and the education of the children, who were numbered by thousands. He, therefore, begged to ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether there is any objection to laying on the Table of the House a Report of the proceedings which have been taken since 1877 under the provisions of the Act 40 and 41 Vict. cap. 60, for the registration of canal boats used as dwellings and the education of the children dwelling therein?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONadmitted that the subject was one of great importance. The annual Report of the Local Government Board for last year had been presented, and would shortly be in the hands of their Lordships, and would contain an account of the proceedings taken under the Act relating to canal boats. It must be remembered that that Act was passed in 1877, but only came into operation last year. Prior to that date the Local Government Board had issued regulations regarding the registration of the boats in respect of their number and of the number of persons whom they were to accommodate, and also defining the authorities who were to have charge of the work of registration and the districts in which the boats were to be registered. The number of districts was 99. Boats had already been registered in 62 out of these 99 districts. The total number of boats registered was 4,964, and that of the persons for whom there was accommodation 22,206. Therefore, as regarded registration, very considerable progress had been made by the local authorities in giving effect to the Act. Of course, when such a large number of persons were concerned, and with interests of such considerable magnitude, it was impossible that the provisions of an Act which only came into operation last year could be as yet carried, out. With regard to the education of the children, the Act provided that the children should be registered where the boats were registered, but that if the parents could show to the school authorities that the children were receiving sufficient instruction in other places it should be taken that the Act was being complied with. The Local Government Board had not yet received Reports as to the effect of the Act in respect of the education of the children; but the local autho-
  1522
  rities must have been much occupied up to the present time with the necessary and preliminary step of registration. When that object was accomplished he hoped that, before the end of the present year, the Local Government Board would obtain from the local authorities statistics as to the results of the Act in the matter of education. As soon as possible, after those Reports were obtained, they would be laid on the Table; but it would be impossible to produce any detailed information on the point at the present moment, though the local authorities had shown every disposition to carry out the Act of Parliament by what they had done in the way of registration. He now begged to lay on the Table the Returns received by the Local Government Board with regard to the registration of the boats and the numbers to be accommodated onboard. (Parl. Paper No. 167.)

THE NAVAL AND MILITARY FORCES —CORPORAL PUNISHMENTS.

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH (for the Marquess of LOTHIAN)moved—
  " That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Return of the number of persons in Her Majesty's Naval and Military forces who have been punished by flogging during the five years ending the 31st of December, 1878; the Return to state the number of lashes in each case and the crime for which the punishment was inflicted."
  His noble Friend believed that very erroneous impressions existed in the public mind on the subject of flogging in the Army and Navy, and that the production of such a Return as he now moved for would show that flogging was only seldom resorted to.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, with regard to the Military Forces there was no objection to the Return. Of course, he could not speak for the Naval Forces; but he did not think there would be any objection to it in their case either. The Return would be a satisfactory one, because, as his noble Friend had surmised, it would show that flogging was very rarely resorted to—never, except on active service.
  Motion amended, by substituting "ten" years for "five;" Motion, as amended, agreed to.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.