Sitting of 9 June 1879

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—The O'Gorman Mahon, for Clare County; Daniel FitzGerald Gabbett, esquire, for Limerick City.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Poor Removal, nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; Class VI.—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER PURPOSES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Linen and Hempen Manufactures (Ireland) * [202]; Spirits [203].
First Reading—East India Loan (Consolidated Fund)*[201].
Select Committee—Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 3)*[121], nominated.
Committee—Customs and Inland Revenue [150]—R.P.; Supreme Court of Judicature Acts Amendment [134]—R.P.; Common Law Procedure and Judicature Acts Amendment*[181].
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (Cashel, &c.)* [141]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (Down-patrick)* [140]; Metropolis (Whitechapel and Limehouse) Improvement Scheme Amendment* [184]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Matterdale Common)* [171]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Redmoor and Golberdon Commons)* [172]; Inclosure Provisional Order (East Stainmore Common)* [174]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Aspull, &c.)* [151]; Volunteer Corps (Ireland)* [5–200],

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA—RETURN OF ECCLESIASTICAL SALARIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can explain why the Return relating to Ecclesiastical Salaries in India, ordered by this House so long ago as the 5th of July 1877, has not yet been presented, and if he can undertake to lay it upon the Table at the latest before the close of this Session?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I regret very much that so great a delay has occurred in the production of this Return. In accordance with the promise given in December last, I caused an inquiry to be addressed to India on the subject. The answer was that the Returns from the local Governments had been found to be unsatisfactory and wanting in uniformity, and that, therefore, fresh Returns had been called for. I presume that the mode of calculating the attendance of Government officials at Divine worship has given rise to some difference of opinion; but I hope that it will not be long before the Return can be presented.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—THE 23RD ARTICLE—THE EUROPEAN PROVINCES OF TURKEY.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, since the renewed

  1431
  representations of Her Majesty's Government, any steps have been taken by the Porte to give effect to that part of the 23rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin, which provides that local institutions analogous to those of Crete (or as subsequently stated of Eastern Roumelia) shall be granted to the several Provinces of European Turkey for which separate provision is not made?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, in consequence of the representations which have been made by Her Majesty's Government on this subject, Sir Henry Layard has been informed that the Porte intends immediately to submit to a Local Commission the question of the organization of these Provinces, which under the Berlin Treaty are not specifically provided for. We have also reason to believe that at this moment an organic Statute has been passed for Eastern Roumelia which is at present under the consideration of the Porte with the view to making it applicable to those Provinces which have been alluded to by the hon. Member who asks the Question.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—THE MONAGHAN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to certain proceedings at the Monaghan Board of Guardians on the 30th of April, May 7th and 21st, and the correspondence between Mr. MacAleese, the proprietor of the "People's Advocate," and the Local Government Board, Ireland, with reference to the exclusion of the reporter of that journal from the board room of the Monaghan Board of Guardians, whilst the other two local being Tory journals are admitted to report the proceedings thereat, and the refusal of a Mr. Jesse Lloyd, the chairman presiding on the 30th of April, to receive the following notice of motion:—
    "I beg to give notice, that I will move on this day month, that the resolution passed by this Board on the 1st May 1878, excluding the representative of the 'People's Advocate' from the meetings, while the reporters of the other local papers are admitted, be rescinded, as unworthy of this or any other Board of Guardians in Ireland;"
    whether it is in the power of a Board of Guardians, where meetings are open to the Press, nevertheless to admit only
    1432
    certain Tory journals, and exclude the representatives of a Liberal journal; if a chairman of a Board of Guardians can of himself refuse to receive a notice of motion admittedly legal, and within the rights of any individual guardian to propose, and so prevent any subject to which he may object from being formally brought before the Board; and, whether a clerk of the peace, who is clerk to the magistrates, and from the nature of his office incapable of acting as a magistrate, is nevertheless legally qualified to act as an ex officio Poor Law Guardian?
    MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the matter, and he understood that the question of the admission or exclusion of any person, whether a representative of the Press or otherwise, rested entirely with the Board of Guardians itself, and was not in any way within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. As to the power of the Chairman of the Board of Guardians of himself to refuse to receive a notice of motion, he (Mr. J. Lowther) apprehended that he had no such power. However, he understood that a notice of motion identical in character with the one referred to in the Question was brought before a meeting of the Guardians specially summoned for the purpose, and it was rejected by a majority. As to the last part of the Question, that related to a legal point upon which he did not feel justified in expressing an opinion; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put the Question to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.
    MR. CALLAN: Sir, I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether a clerk of the peace who is clerk to the magistrates, and from the nature of his office incapable of acting as a magistrate, is nevertheless legally qualified to act as an ex officio Poor Law Guardian, referring specially to the 13th section of the County Officers (Ireland) Act of 1877?

    SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—OVERTURES OF PEACE—DETENTION OF MESSENGERS.—QUESTION.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have not given him

    1433
    Notice, but which, should he prefer it, I shall be happy to put again to-morrow. I should like to know, Whether the latest despatches from South Africa mention any fresh overtures for peace having been made by the Zulu King; and, if so, whether he will state to the House the result of the negotiations which have taken place?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Hon Members may probably have, seen the telegram published by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War in this morning's newspapers. That I think is practically correct. It appears that some messengers came from Cetewayo to General Crealock stating Cetewayo's strong desire for peace; but they did not appear to have been authorized by the Great Council or by the King to offer any terms of peace, or to be of the rank ordinarily sent for such a purpose. I believe Lord Chelmsford directed General Crealock to tell these messengers that he had informed previous messengers that any message was to be sent to him at General Wood's camp, that he was ready to recive any message under a flag of truce, and that something more than words would be required, alluding, of course, to the terms of peace dictated to Cetewayo in December last, and anticipating some reply to these proposals.

    PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS—GREECE AND CYPRUS.—QUESTIONS.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked, When the Greek and Cyprian Papers would be delivered to Members?
    MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, the Cyprian Papers would be delivered tomorrow or the day after; and the Greek Papers at the end of next week, or the beginning of the week following.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDasked, When the Egyptian Papers would be delivered?
    MR. BOURKEhoped they would speedily be circulated.

    PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked, If it was to be understood that the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill would be proceeded with at the Morning Sitting on the morrow (this day); and, if the Government could state
    1434
    what Business they intended to take on Thursday?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply said, the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill was to be taken to-morrow at the Morning Sitting, and on Thursday they proposed to resume the adjourned discussion on Indian Finance.
    MR. CALLAN: Sir, I should wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question which would convenience Irish Members very much to have answered. It is, Whether it is his intention to bring forward the Irish Estimates, or the Scotch Universities Votes before this day week?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: Sir, the promise which has already been given does not apply to all the Irish Estimates, nor to the Votes for the Scotch Universities. It is proposed to take the Irish Law Votes.
    MR. CALLAN: I understood that before the Recess some Member on the opposite side stated that none of the Irish Estimates would be taken on the first night after the Recess. Might I ask if that is so?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: I suppose I am the Member of the Government referred to. At all events, what I did say was that I would take none of the Votes objected to by certain hon. Members for Ireland; but with regard to the Irish Law Votes I made no promise. I gave no pledge whatever and I would not take the Law Votes of Class III. In fact, I did say I would take Class III. as it stood.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  [Progress.]
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £129,351, 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 Expense of the Maintenance of Juvenile Offenders in Reformatory, Industrial, and Day Industrial

    1435
    Schools in Great Britain, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inspectors of Reformatories."
    MR. JAMES STEWARTsaid, that in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), he would move the reduction of the item of £112,000 for Industrial Schools in England by the sum of £6,891. It would be remembered that last Session exception was taken to this Vote on the ground that there was no valid reason why the allowance for children in the industrial schools for Scotland should be less than the allowance made in England. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) stated, then, that the Government were prepared to take the matter into their consideration, and upon that understanding the Scotch Members did not press the matter to a Division. He (Mr. James Stewart) thought it was incumbent on the Scotch Members now to do more than they did last year, because they felt disappointed that the Vote should not have been equalized, and the payment for children in Scotland placed on the same footing as that for children in England. He, therefore, begged to move the Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £112,000, for Industrial Schools, England, he reduced by the sum of £6,891."—(Mr. James Stewart.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsubmitted that when this question was under discussion last year, he expressed the intention to look into the case with the view of seeing whether this payment ought not to be raised in Scotland to the amount paid in England. As the result of the inquiry he had made, he was prepared, on behalf of the Treasury, to accept the recommendation of the Inspector of Reformatories in favour of any school that was placed in this invidious position. The case really stood in this way—In 1861 the Scotch reformatory schools were paid at the rate of 4s. per child, which grant was raised in 1867 to 4s. 6d., at which figure it now stood. With regard to the English scale, all schools that dated before 1872 were in receipt of 5s. for every child of the same age as those children for whom
    1436
    the Scotch schools were paid 4s. 6d. per head. He should be prepared, on the part of the Treasury, to raise the sum of 4s. 6d. to 5s. in cases where the Inspector of Reformatories, having satisfied himself that the school was an efficient one, had certified that it was founded before 1872. He could not place the Scotch schools in a different position with regard to schools founded after that date, which were paid at the rate of 3s. 6d. per child.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, they could not ask more than that the Scotch schools should be placed precisely on the same footing as the English schools. He desired to know from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the English schools were to be subjected to the same condition as the hon. Gentleman had just stated would be imposed as regarded the Scotch schools in respect to the payment of 5s. per child, and whether a certificate was required before the payment was made?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that was the rule under which the English grant was made; and all he could say was that, in making this addition to the Scotch rate, these schools would be subjected to the same condition that the English schools were subjected to—that was, that there must be a certificate of efficiency. Already the Treasury had sanctioned an increase at this rate to the industrial schools at Edinburgh and Glasgow; but it had never been carried out.
    MR. C. S. PARKERthanked the hon. Baronet for the concession he had made. He was sure that the Scotch Representatives were satisfied with the concession as now explained, and he hoped that the new arrangement would take effect immediately.
    MR. JAMES STEWARTsaid, after the explanation of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. W. H. JAMESasked for an explanation of the diminution to the extent of £1,000 in the grant to the Day Industrial School. As far as he was aware, there was only one school of the kind established throughout the whole of England, and it would be re-assuring if the hon. Baronet could state that it was being carried on successfully, and

    1437
    at the same time state why it had been thought right to reduce the grant.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE EIDLEYpointed out that there were three day industrial schools—two in Liverpool, and one at Bristol. The reason for the reduction of the grant was that it was found last year that £2,500, which was the sum taken, was largely in excess of what was required. It was expected that £1,500, which was now taken, would cover the whole of the cost of these establishments.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that an hon. Friend had given Notice of an Amendment to reduce the Vote by £5. He (Mr. Biggar) had no proposition on the Paper; but he begged leave to move the reduction of the Vote by a similar sum, for this reason—that they in Ireland, as compared with England, were somewhat unfairly treated in respect to reformatory and industrial schools. He believed that in England the number of children who could be sent by the local magistrates to such schools was perfectly unlimited—that, in fact, the reformatory schools were bound to receive as many young persons as were sent there by the magistrates, if there was sufficient accommodation for them. But, unfortunately, in Ireland the case was thoroughly different. The local Inspector, no doubt, a very estimable gentleman, on his own responsibility stipulated what number of boys or girls, as the case might be, should be sent to the reformatory schools. He particularly wished to direct the attention of the Committee to the Roman Catholic Reformatory School for boys at Belfast—a school capable of accommodating, so far as dormitories and general internal arrangements were concerned, as many as 160 boys; but the Inspector only certified that accommodation should be given for 75 boys. The result of this was that the promoters of the school, who had gone to considerable expense in filling up the establishment for the required purpose, had one-half of the money expended unused. That was a great grievance; and it was felt to be one by the local magistrate, who was a Protestant and of Conservative politics; by the prosecuting authority of Belfast, which was purely Conservative, and also by the manager of the school; and he held that until the grievance was redressed, some limit should be put upon
    1438
    the amount granted by Parliament for the support of reformatory schools. Not long ago, Mr. Hamilton, the magistrate of Belfast, had one boy before him whom he wished to send to the Roman Catholic Reformatory; but, unfortunately, the reply he received was that there was no accommodation for the boy on account of the limit put upon the number of boys who were to receive free lodging by the certificate of the Inspector. In the whole of the Province of Ulster there were only two reformatory schools—one for Protestant boys, and one for Roman Catholics. Notwithstanding that there were constant applications for admissions in the Catholic school, the Inspector would only certify for 75; whereas he gave a certificate in respect to the Protestant school for 350 boys, the two sects in the Province being about equal. The Inspector was himself a Roman Catholic; but he gave the Protestants greater privileges than he accorded to his co-religionists. In point of fact, the Protestants did not require so much accommodation as was provided for them; because he (Mr. Biggar) found that, according to the last Return, there were only 126 boys in the school, a certificate being given for 350. The Government ought to give some assurance that the grievance under which the Catholics of Belfast laboured in this matter would be redressed; in fact, that the certificate for 125 boys should be transferred from the Protestant school to the Catholic school, which number of boys could be reasonably accommodated in the present building. That could be done without any increase on the charge for which certificates had been granted. The Roman Catholics would be materially benefited without any injury accruing to the Protestants, who had now more accommodation than they really required. The system of limiting the number by hard-and-fast lines told very hardly against Roman Catholic children. One argument against the Irish claim, in respect to these schools, was that a higher rate was paid in Ireland; but he found that in England and Scotland a very similar rate was paid. In Scotland a very large proportion of the children were paid for at the rate of 4s. 6d. per week; whilst 6s. was paid in England in the case of the older children, and a very large proportion were paid for at 5s. In Ireland, the rate was 5s. all round; so that, in reality,

    1439
    even so far as the rate was concerned, there was very little advantage to Ireland. Now, if it were said that the average rate in Ireland should be brought down to the average rate in England, and that, at the same time, they should be allowed to put in as many children as they wanted in the Irish schools, he would be better satisfied. The manager of a school would be much better pleased to get as many boys at 4s. 6d. a-week as his school would accommodate than to receive 5s., and to have to refuse thoroughly eligible subjects, as at present. He begged leave to move the reduction of the Vote by £5.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was the practice to move the reduction of a Vote by a more considerable sum than had been named by the hon. Member, or, at least, by an amount equivalent to some head or item of the Vote. He thought that he should not be following the usual practice if he were to put to the Committee a reduction by £5, that amount not arising in any form connected with the Vote.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the question he wished to raise was this—that in England an unlimited number of children were taken into these industrial schools, if there were accommodation for them in the building; but in Ireland the case was different. The Irish schools were limited to a specific number, and could not take any beyond that. He did not wish that the amount given for industrial schools in England should be substantially reduced, but only to raise a question of principle—namely, as to whether or not there should be a limited number of admissions in Ireland, and whether thoroughly eligible candidates should be turned away on account of arbitrary and unreasonable certificates?
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, that in placing a similar Amendment upon the Paper to that just referred to, he did so for this reason—He should be very sorry to be found voting against any sum of money being devoted to this most useful purpose of industrial schools in England; but he merely wished to call attention to the very arbitrary course which was pursued by the Treasury in the matter of the Irish schools, which were dealt with very differently to those in England. In 1872, there was a Treasury Minute passed reducing the amount of the allowance paid per head on all children in
    1440
    industrial schools in England and Ireland to 3s. 6d. per head, and people were asked, as he understood it, to open new schools at 3s. 6d. per head. That Minute was now in operation, and it was expected that Irish managers would open new schools at 3s. 6d. per head, which it was utterly impossible for them to do. If children could be kept for that sum, what excuse could be given for paying 5s. and 6s. in England for the maintenance of a large proportion of the 9,000 children in the schools of that country? He was not going to make a wholesale accusation against the Treasury. All the schools at present in operation in Ireland were receiving 5s. per head, and there were many schools in England which were not receiving so much; but he complained that this arbitrary rule was launched by the Treasury, cutting down to 3s. 6d. all new schools which might be opened after a certain date. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBEETSON: It was not in 1872.] The hon. Baronet intimated that it was not in 1872. Well, it might not have been in 1872 in Ireland, but it was in England, and the rule now applied in a most harsh way to Ireland, simply from this fact—that in England they had local bodies and laws enabling them to contribute to the schools, but in Ireland they had only one class of local body. In England they had school boards, contributing, in some eases, as much as 4s. 6d. per week, which would make a total of 8s., even with the minimum grant. But in Ireland they had not got the same local resources; and last year, when a Bill was brought in to give other local bodies in Ireland power to contribute, it was blocked by Notices of hon. Members on the Government side of the House. They exercised their undoubted right, of which he could not complain; but he did complain that a law had been issued that new schools were only to receive 3s. 6d. That might act in England, where they had other local bodies empowered to contribute, but it could not act in Ireland; and although he fully appreciated the good motives of the Treasury in doing this in order to compel local support, and to prevent idle parents from being relieved of the charge of the maintenance of their children, he knew it was the opinion of those who were competent to judge, and of the authorities of the English schools themselves, that al-

    1441
    though that rule might work in England, it could not in Ireland. What had, in fact, happened since the rule was passed? In England people had been willing to open new schools, because they were well aided; but it had crushed out new schools in Ireland, and not a single new school had been opened there since then. He found that 6,200 out of 9,000 children in the English schools were paid for at the rate of 5s. and 6s. per week; and if those sums were required in this country for a very large majority, it was quite evident that 3s. 6d. could not be enough in Ireland. It was proposed to apply the rule in question only in reference to new schools to be established; and, in the face of that decision, he wished to know what earthly excuse there was for maintaining the old grant in the old-established schools? He argued that the Government should seriously consider the matter, with a view that something might be done, not to crush further progress, but to enable new schools to be opened on a reasonable basis.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, any Amendment of an Estimate should be one that raised a question of a substantial reduction. The hon. Member's observations had boon perfectly germane to the Question before the Committee; but he (the Chairman) did not think he should be acting in accordance with precedent in putting to the Committee a reduction of £5.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought a short explanation would clear up a great deal of the difficulty and doubt which appeared to exist. The real facts of the case were these—In 1872, on its being found that the sums paid were really too liberal—namely, 5s. or 3s. from 6 to 10 years, and 3s. more from 10 to 16 years—and encouraged too much the admission of children whose parents ought to support them, but wished to get rid of them, the Government reduced the grant to new industrial schools in England alone to 3s. 6d., at which it now stood. At that sum a large number of schools had been started, and were being properly and effectively worked. Nothing was done in 1872, or subsequently, with regard to Ireland, where 5s. had always been paid, without any distinction of age, and without any of the minor sums which were given in Scotland and in
    1442
    England for the younger children. But in order to prevent the very thing which the new rule was passed to prevent in England, a limitation was put upon the number of scholars in Ireland by making it obligatory that the consent of the Lord Lieutenant should be given to the number of children for which schools were certified; and that had acted as a check upon the too rapid increase of these schools in Ireland, which would not really operate in the direction in which hon. Members all wished to see them operate—namely, for the repression of crime and the improvement of children who were either destitute or criminal. Last year his attention was called by Irish Members to that restriction. They said it placed the industrial schools of Ireland on a different footing to those of England, and he was asked to consider whether he could not bring about some similarity. Well, of course, if that limitation as to number were taken off, and if in Ireland they were to be allowed to create these schools in any number, only fulfilling the condition that the English schools had fulfilled of thorough efficiency, then the Irish managers ought not to complain if they were placed on an identical footing with the English as to the grant. Therefore, he proposed last year to abolish the restriction, and to reduce the grant to 3s. 6d. for children between the ages of 10 and 16 years. What had been the result? He had had two, if not three, cases from Ireland, pointing out just what the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) had stated this evening—that it was impossible, in the opinion of people in Ireland, to maintain these schools on the 3s. 6d. grant. He had endeavoured to bring the Irish schools down to that condition of grant in order that he might relax the limitation upon the numbers, and really place them on identical terms with the grants in England.
    MR. A. MOOREobserved, that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury had not relaxed the regulation referred to.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that he had not, because of that objection, and because of the statement that they would not open schools on the more moderate amount. It had gone so far, however, that, within a few weeks, he had relaxed the rule at Dungarvan

    1443
    school, which was limited to a certain number of boys. The Treasury had consented to the admission of the additional number asked for, provided they were taken at the reduced rate, thus bringing them into accord with the English system. Since then he had had applications from that school and neighbourhood, pointing out the impossibility of carrying on the school on such terms, and he had at last consented to a larger number of boys being taken at the larger sum of 5s. per week. If the hon. Member looked at the comparative numbers, he would see that the amounts granted in Ireland were far in excess of those granted in England and Scotland, because all the boys were treated on the same condition, irrespective of age. If, however, uniformity was to be brought about, the Irish schools must accept the same terms as the others; and if they would do that, he would agree, on the part of the Treasury, that the limitation should be at once abolished. But it must be on condition that the terms were identical, financially and otherwise, and then they would bring about in Ireland the result which had been attained in England by operating in another direction.
    MR. A. MOOREinquired whether the hon. Baronet would be good enough, also, to introduce a measure to equalize the powers of local bodies to contribute?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there were some things which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury seemed to have overlooked. In many cases, the managers of the schools paid a considerable amount out of their own pockets for children in excess of those for whom the Government grant was given. In a school in Wexford there were 23 of these "free" children; at Tralee, 11; and at St. Vincent, Limerick, there were absolutely 92; at another place in Limerick there were 62; at Roscommon, 44; and at Sligo, 44 free to 30 children who were paid for, which reduced the average payment to less than 2s. 6d. per head. Another point of difference between the English and Irish schools was that, in the former, children were allowed to be paid for over the age of 16, supposing they were learning a trade; but, in the latter, the grant was withdrawn at that age. If the hon. Baronet asked the managers of schools to maintain children for less than 5s., it
    1444
    was impossible to do so. The average cost for boys was somewhere about 8s., so that at present the remaining 3s. had to be made up by the local authorities.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, it was far from the wish of the Government to throw any obstacle in the way of what was admitted to be one of the best means of reducing the criminal population. A great deal of the opposition of hon. Members arose from misapprehension of the facts. The English system was not contributed to by the rates in nine cases out of ten; certainly a very large proportion were supported by the Government grant and voluntary contributions. Most of the schools were created by voluntary efforts, supplemented by the grant. There were county industrial schools which had a claim on the rates; but an immense deal of the industrial school work of England was done by voluntary effort; and it was because he thought voluntary efforts ought to be encouraged that he had said he should only be too glad to see the Irish schools placed in identically the same position as they were placed in the other two parts of the Kingdom. If the Irish people really felt as strongly on the matter as was represented, they would make an effort to follow the example of England, and they would find that the cost of these schools was not so large as was stated by the hon. Member for Cavan(Mr. Biggar). The majority of the voluntary schools in England were supported at an average cost of 7s. per head per week, and he was satisfied that for that amount a proper industrial school could be efficiently carried out. Therefore, if a half was contributed by the State, it did not leave a very large amount to be met by voluntary effort, which in England had always been forthcoming. It had been suggested by the hon. Member for Cavan that, after a certain number, all children should be paid for at a reduced rate. That was the very proposal which he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) made in two cases; but he was told in both cases that the managers could not accept it, and he was placed in the position of being obliged to grant 5s. per head for all. He need hardly point out that, however carefully these schools were managed, when they were paid so largely as that, the inducement was very great to thrust into the schools children who

    1445
    ought to be kept by their parents. If he I could see his way to a solution of this most difficult question he should be exceedingly pleased, because, as he had already said, the system was one that he should like to see encouraged, not only in England, but also in Ireland. He must notice one point which had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Cavan, who complained of the scarcity of reformatories provided for Roman Catholic boys. That, he believed, would be found to be merely the result of want of local energy and want of effort, rather than the fault of a very able public servant, the Inspector of Reformatories, whose sympathies were certainly not in favour of reducing the number of those schools in the country.
    MR. A. MOOREfelt quite sure the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury wished to arrive at a fair solution of the differences between the two countries; but he desired to correct the error into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen when he said there were no voluntary efforts made in Ireland—
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had not expressed that view. What he remarked was that the voluntary contributions in Ireland did not amount to a sum in connection with the Government grant so large in comparison as it did in England.
    MR. A. MOOREsaid, the hon. Gentleman spoke of the great voluntary efforts in this country, and said these schools were mainly due to voluntary effort. But the fact was, local bodies in this country largely assisted. For instance, the county magistrates of Middlesex built Feltham, the cost of the laud and buildings being about £150,000. In Ireland, private individuals supplied every shilling spent on these industrial schools there. Thus, a large school outside Dublin, containing 700 boys, cost £30,000 of private money. He hoped the House would not be led into the impression that there was no voluntary effort made in Ireland. But he did not wish to pursue the subject further. A resolution had been passed cutting down the amount to 3s. 6d. The Elementary Education Act did not, he was glad to say, apply the school boards to Ireland; but in England there was the assistance afforded by these boards, and to ask these schools in Ireland to go on at the 3s. 6d. rate was to ask an impossibility.
    MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that in Scotland generally industrial schools had been established by private subscriptions, and were supported from this source assisted by Government grants. He would take this opportunity of thanking the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury for having agreed to place Scotland in the same position as England and Ireland in regard to the amount of the grant per child. That was all that the Scotch people wanted.
    MAJOR NOLANfeared that the change was but the thin end of the wedge, and though the financial difference, as now proposed, was slight, yet it might ultimately be fraught with important consequences. If the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would promise that the present number of children would be always left under the 5s. rate, then the change would not be nearly so bad.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, his proposal was that schools in the future would be treated in the same way as they were in England, and additional schools and additions to the numbers of boys in existing schools would be under the 3s. 6d. system; but old schools, with the numbers now sanctioned, would be under the old system of 5s. In one instance, where, in the ease of some 50 boys, the proposed limitation to 3s. 6d. was put in force, it was again raised to 5s. in compliance with the urgent request of the neighbourhood, so that there was no disposition to make this the thin end of the wedge. If it was wished to place Ireland in the same position with England as regarded these schools, that could only be done by accepting the financial part of the question as well as every other part of the position. If that was done, all the schools with the numbers already sanctioned would be paid for at the 5s. rate, while all additions would be treated under the new 3s. 6d. system.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the thin end of the wedge alluded to was being driven in an opposite direction to that feared by Irish Members. Instead of there being anything contrary to Irish interests, it seemed to him that the thin end of the wedge was what had been done in favour of some 50 boys beyond the prescribed number, and who, in Scotland, would only receive 3s. 6d. Scotch Members

    1447
    had to thank Government for putting Scotland on the same footing with England, and it was only fair that Ireland should be placed on an equal footing. He hoped the Treasury would maintain their position, and not allow this thin end of the wedge, as regarded these 50 boys, to be driven any further. There was another point to which he wished to direct attention, and that was to training-ships. He was a member of a deputation from Scotland which waited on the Home Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman gave hopes that their representations would be favourably considered with regard to the great advantage of those ships, and especially with regard to the training ship on the Tay and its advantage to Scotland. When he considered that a boy in a training-ship only cost the Government 6s., whereas a boy in an industrial school on shore cost 5s., he thought the additional 1s. in the former case was well spent in the endeavour to turn the worst part of our juvenile population into efficient seamen; for, as they had suggested to the Home Secretary, the Mercantile Marine was at present inefficiently supplied with sailors, and was obliged to man largely with foreigners. The coasting population did not now supply the Marine to the extent that it formerly did; and, therefore, these training-ships did the country service not only by reclaiming boys from vice and misery, but by raising up a body of seamen much wanted by our Merchant Marine. He, therefore, ventured to hope that the Government would endeavour to increase the number of boys on board these ships, and that, in all arrangements affecting industrial schools, the claims of training-ships would be fairly considered.
    Mr. O'DONNELLsaid, he would not reply to the observations of the last speaker (Sir George Campbell) upon Irish affairs. Too frequently had the hon. Member shown his ignorance of them to make it necessary to reply on this occasion. A fair solution of the question had been touched upon, but, only incidentally, by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury. With regard to the Dungarvan school, the hon. Gentleman said he had found it necessary, after the proposed limitation had been made upon the numbers over a certain number, to raise the grant again to 5s. at the urgent request of the
    1448
    neighbourhood. Now, Irish Members would be quite content to allow the Government to establish a rule making the grant generally only 3s. 6d., except in cases where the general consensus of the neighbourhood pointed to the fact that 3s. 6d. would be entirely inefficient. That would be a thoroughly satisfactory solution. He did not at all see the aptness of the Government argument, that they had cut down the sum for the maintenance of the boys, in order to limit the temptation to throw boys on the public who ought to be supported by their own parents. The sum to be made up would certainly not come out of the pockets of these parents, and he could not see how the parents would be restrained by this proposition. Safeguards should be applied in another direction. Let the tests be more strict to insure the boys being deserving objects, and let the experience and opinion of the neighbourhood have a voice in determining the sum necessary for their efficient maintenance. He objected to the opinion expressed by some hon. Members, that Irish Members were asking exceptional privileges for Irish industrial schools—in fact, another illustration of the way in which Ireland desired those wants supplied out of the Imperial Exchequer which in England and Scotland would be met by local contributions. The hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) had pointed out that there were large contributions out of local funds in these cases in Ireland, and the Committee should remember that in all these demands on the Imperial Exchequer Ireland was impelled by the great poverty of the country. English Members might talk of local contributions and the handsome donations of local landlords; but hon. Members on both sides should remember the initial distinction between the two countries. Ireland was regularly depleted from year to year. English Members might boast of landlords and munificence; but they had not to contend with absentee landlords. Irish rents were spent in England. That fact was too notorious; and until that was remedied Ireland must apply to the Imperial Exchequer for assistance.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that in corroboration of the statement that the people of Ireland were unable to support these schools, he would cite an instance where a landlord in Cork, with a rental of

    1449
    £14,000 a-year, spent only 12 s. a-week in the place. How, then, could it be expected that local subscriptions to these schools could be very large. He would not divide the Committee upon the point, however, even if he were able, all that he wished to do being to call attention to an undoubted grievance.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £20,125, 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 Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, England."
    MR. RYLANDS MR. RYLANDS moved, as an Amendment, that the Vote be reduced by the amount of £2,000, with the object of impressing upon the Government the necessity of dealing with Broadmoor Asylum in a more economical manner than had hitherto been practised. Two years ago, so unsatisfactory was the state of expenditure with regard to this institution, that the Home Secretary appointed a Departmental Committee, with the object of ascertaining whether some great improvements could be made. The Home Secretary was not by any means satisfied with the state of affairs then, and he (Mr. Rylands) did not think he could be more satisfied now. At all events, on the face of the Vote and the amount of expenditure, unless the Home Secretary could give satisfactory assurances that the expenditure would be reduced, the Committee would be justified in reducing the sum. The Report presented by the Committee to which he had alluded was of a remarkable character. On this Committee were five Gentlemen, all of very considerable authority, and the minority of two Members had such an unfavourable opinion of Broadmoor that they recommended the institution should be closed, the building pulled down, and that, making the best of the materials, a new asylum should be erected under conditions admitting of more efficient and economical control. However, the majority of three thought this drastic remedy hardly necessary. They did not think that a large public building, erected within 10 or 17 years, and under the authority of Government, could be de-
    1450
    cided to be so entirely unsuited as to make it necessary to be pulled down. They, therefore, recommended that, instead of pulling down this building, erected at enormous expenditure, considerable alteration should be made to secure efficient and economical management. But he (Mr. Rylands) could not gather from the Estimates that any of these recommendations had been adopted—perhaps, the Home Secretary would tell the Committee. He remembered that the Committee were of opinion that there was a large amount of unnecessary expenditure, increasing from year to year, on ordinary repairs of buildings, roads, fences, and drains; but he found that last year £2,000 had been spent in that way, and the Estimate contained a similar amount—an expenditure most extraordinary under the circumstances. There was an increase also by the introduction of a new item of £900 for new buildings and alterations, and that was the only evidence on the face of the Vote that anything was being done to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. He called attention to the fact that the cost of lunatics confined in this asylum was very much in excess of the cost of prisoners in gaols, and of the cost of lunatics in the lunatic asylums of the Kingdom. He was anxious the Committee should bear in mind that, though the Home Secretary declined to accept the management of this as a Government institution, yet, in point of fact, it was a Government institution. It was under the control of the Home Office, and, perhaps, they would hear how far the Home Office was able to exercise that control. There was an omission in this Estimate, to which he directed the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury. There was no statement of the number of lunatics confined in the asylum, and for which the Estimate was prepared. It would be observed that in the Estimate for Convict Prisons this information was furnished.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdirected the hon. Member's attention to page 222.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He had found the information he required. In the useful paper issued by the Secretary to the Treasury in March last, there was a statement of the average cost of the inmates of the Broadmoor Asylum. In

    1451
    passing, he wished to observe that the Home Office took credit to themselves that the Vote would have shown a larger reduction, but for the item of £900 for new buildings. The net decrease was £696; and but for this £900, the absolute decrease would have been £1,596, which the Home Secretary would consider a material reduction. But, having regard to the decrease in the price of provisions and materials, and bearing in mind the Report of the Committee, he (Mr. Rylands) thought a much larger diminution of expenditure should be shown than the £1,596 for which the Home Office took credit. Much of this £1,500 was due to the reduction in the cost of maintaining the inmates. By way of comparison, let them look at the Convict Prison Estimates, and compare them with the Estimate for Criminal Lunatics. In convict establishments the cost per prisoner had been reduced from £38 10 s. in 1878 to £37 8s. in 1879, and the cost in local prisons had been reduced from £24 19 s. to £23. But in this case of Broadmoor the reduction was from £56 1s. in 1578 to £55 15 s. in 1879. That was a reduction of but 6s. per head, and was by no means in proportion to the saving in the cost of food, &c. Perhaps they would have some explanation of this. Next, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the important fact that while under this Vote they paid £55 15 s. as the cost of criminal lunatics in Broadmoor, the cost for them in asylums managed by the county magistrates, and under the control of the county Justices, was very much less. In his county of Lancashire it was less than half, for he found from a Return presented to him as a magistrate for that county in the year 1878–9 was £21 18 s. 2d. for Prestwich, £24 3s. 2d. for Rainhill, and £25 9s. for Whittingham; or an average of £23 per head. One of the main reasons for the difference arose from the difference in the cost of the staff. At Broadmoor the attendants cost per prisoner £19 10 s. 5d.; while at Prestwich, in Lancashire, it was £4 16 s. 4d., or only about one-fourth of the charge at Broadmoor. They might be told that a very much larger staff was required to manage a criminal lunatic asylum than an ordinary county lunatic asylum. He was prepared to dispute that altogether; nd he did not believe that anything
    1452
    like the excess represented by the difference in these figures was necessary. In the asylum at Prestwich, for instance, there were a number of very violent lunatics; while the evidence taken before the Departmental Committee showed very distinctly that even harmless lunatics required constant attendance because of the suicidal mania with which they were afflicted. A large number of attendants were required, for instance, at Prestwich; but even admitting that a larger staff was required at Broadmoor than at the county lunatic asylums—and he was not prepared to say that some little excess was not justified—still the amount charged in the Estimates did appear to him to be beyond all reason. There could be nothing to justify so great a divergence as that between £55 15 s. and £23; and as he was decidedly of opinion that these charges were excessive, he should move the reduction of the Vote by £2,000, and unless some satisfactory explanation of the difference were given, the Committee would do well to support him in making the reduction.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £18,125, 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 Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics in the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, England."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTregretted that some Notice had not been given of the Motion, as then the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) would have been present; and, doubtless, he would have been able, as a member of the Visiting Committee at Broadmoor, to have given them some reasons for the present state of things. This Vote had been before the House on many occasions; but still his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had done good service in calling attention to the very high rate at which criminal lunatics were maintained in Broadmoor. He understood that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had made considerable changes at Broadmoor, and that the class of persons now kept there were lunatics detained "during the pleasure of Her Majesty." Those persons who had become insane while undergoing

    1453
    punishment were not now kept in that prison, as he understood. Many of the persons now confined there were, therefore, more or less harmless, in no way violent, as many others were. What he particularly wished to call attention to was that criminal lunatics—that was to say, persons who had become insane while undergoing a sentence of imprisonment—were now sent to the county asylums. This was the very class which was formerly maintained at Broadmoor; yet they were now kept in these county asylums at a much less rate than what they cost when at Broadmoor. He thought it was very hard that these persons should be sent to the counties. They ought to be in some more appropriate place; and he had heard many complaints about the matter from visitors, doctors, and others. It certainly was very improper that paper lunatics should be shut up with persons who had been convicted of felony, burglary, and it might even be, in a lesser degree, of something very like murder. Surely, when the country was paying a large sum for the maintenance of Broadmoor, the county ratepayers had a right to complain that the cost of these lunatics was thrown upon them, and that they had to maintain them in their asylums. His right hon. Friend had had Memorials from a large number of counties—if not, indeed, from most of the counties in England—complaining of this practice, and he did think that a very strong case was made out. For instance, at that moment, there were in Colney Hatch 17 criminal lunatics, and five of them were under sentences for life. Why were such men to be kept in an asylum of that kind? Surely, it was not fair that the county should be charged with the cost of their maintenance. Five of these came direct from Broadmoor; and he found that several others had come from various places, their sentences having expired, but being still under police supervision, and they were transferred to the asylum under the warrant of the Secretary of State. Such men ought not to be in a county asylum. The Government, he believed, had a prison, close by Broadmoor, called Knaphill, where criminal lunatics had been sent at times; and he did not see why that should not be done again. That was a proper prison for criminal lunatics. But the conduct of the authorities there had been bitterly
    1454
    complained of in the way in which they sent discharged lunatics to the union in which that prison was situated. Strong complaints of this conduct had been made to the Home Secretary', though he had not yet had time to investigate them. He understood, also, that a Memorial to him was in course of preparation, complaining that these criminal lunatics, on their discharge, were taken to the workhouse and left there, instead of being passed to the asylum of the county from which they came. The Government had no right to ask the counties, after they had built asylums for these poor unfortunate suffering creatures, to put among them convicted felons and persons of the worst character. Some provision should also be made for criminal lunatics whose sentence had expired, many of whom were totally unfit to associate with ordinary lunatics in county asylums. Why should not his right hon. Friend, with 50 empty prisons at his disposal, fit up one of them in the North, and another in the South of England, to which could be sent these dangerous and violent lunatics? The counties, of course, would have to contribute for the maintenance of those whoso sentences had expired. At any rate, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do something to relieve the counties from the necessity of receiving such persons into their asylums.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, when he came into Office he found at Broadmoor not only male and female prisoners sent there to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure, who were not looked upon as criminals at all, because, of course, they were incapable of crime, but other persons mixed with them, who had been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, and during those periods of imprisonment had become insane. Those, of course, were criminals; and though, having become insane, they could not, of course, be punished as such, still there was a difference, and a considerable difference, between them and the other class of prisoners. He found on inquiry that Broadmoor was built as a prison for persons acquitted on some charge on the ground of insanity, and that the other class had no business to be there at all. As a consequence, a great number of persons who ought to have gone to Broadmoor had been sent elsewhere, because there was no room

    1455
    for them. He, therefore, thought it much I better to clear Broadmoor of persons who ought not to be there than to mix up criminals and lunatics, which, in his opinion, was a very wrong thing to do. As to what was to be done with them, that was a matter for argument. Of course, the counties were bound to find asylums for their lunatics; but it was a question whether it would be cheaper or more economical to keep these criminal lunatics more distinct. The simple point to be decided was, whether the counties should provide the place, or whether the Government should provide a prison, not, of course, at the cost of the Government but at the cost of the county? He was not aware that the matter was to have been brought on that evening, or he would have been prepared to give further answers. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had also complained that, in one or two cases, the criminal lunatic had not been delivered to the proper authorities. He had no recollection of any complaints on the subject; but he would have the matter looked into. Certainly, there was no reason why the persons in question should not have been properly handed over, and he thought there must be some blame to be attributed to the person in charge. With regard to the cost of Broadmoor, he was bound to say that that subject had been a thorn in his side for some time. His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) went with him when he visited the prison, and he was bound to say that he came away rather more disheartened than when he went. The real mischief of the whole thing was that the prison was built in the most extravagant style from the outset, and the arrangements of the building were such as to make a permanent waste of money almost necessary. It was very difficult to get over the original faulty construction, both in buildings and in the arrangement of rooms. The enormous size of the place, the distances at which people were kept, and the number of servants consequently necessary, made it almost impossible to bring the average of cost down to the figure of the county lunatic asylums. The character of the lunatics to be taken care of, and the numberless acts of violence committed by them, made constant watching necessary in their case. They were very much more violent indeed
    1456
    than the criminals who became insane. Something had already been done to reduce the expense, for whereas the Estimate in 1875–6 was £35,500, this year it was only £27,000; so that something had already been done to reduce the cost. As his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Rylands) had said, the prison was not directly under his control. The management was vested in a body of Prison Commissioners, and he had only power over the Estimates by ordering them to be reduced. He did insist that they must be reduced, or they should not receive his signature. Accordingly, a considerable reduction was made; but, notwithstanding that, his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) now told him that there would be a return to the Treasury of about £2,000. He very much regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), who was now Chairman of the Prisons Board, and, therefore, really had a great deal more to do with the management of the prison than he had as Home Secretary. But he could tell his hon. Friends and the Committee that if there was one thing more than another which his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire had impressed upon his mind, it was the necessity of reduction in expenditure. He hoped, with this explanation, his hon. Friend opposite would allow the Vote to pass. They had discussed over and over again whether it would not be cheaper to pull down the building and build it again elsewhere. The property certainly could not be sold at a price which would enable the Government to build again. The matter was not finally decided, for there were great difficulties in the way; but he hoped the hon. Member would leave the matter in his hands to see what could be done.
    MR. HIBBERTthought, after the promise given last year that this subject should be fully inquired into, his hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) was fully justified in bringing forward, this question. He himself rose to speak on the question raised by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), and he must say he was scarcely satisfied with the reply of the Home Secretary. He thought there would be great difficulty in dealing with these criminal lunatics in the way suggested. This particular class was as

    1457
    nearly allied to criminals as could be, and for years they were treated as such by being sent abroad. His right hon. Friend, on the other hand, had distributed them in various county lunatic asylums. He wished his right hon. Friend could see his way to putting this class by themselves in one of the vacant prisons; for he knew by his experience of the county lunatic asylums of Lancashire that they were a very difficult class to deal with, owing to their very unsafe character. In Prestwich Asylum, they had been obliged to build a considerable number of separate rooms of a more expensive character than those required for ordinary lunatics, in order to accommodate this class, who were of a most dangerous character. Judging by what he had seen of them, he should be very glad indeed if his right hon. Friend could see his way to placing this particular class of lunatics in a separate asylum, where also they would enjoy the advantage of being better treated than they were in county lunatic asylums. He could not agree that Broadmoor could be carried on as cheaply as a county lunatic asylum; but still he thought a very strong case had been made out for some reduction in the Vote.
    MR. WHITWELLentirely agreed with the view of the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Walter B. Bartte-lot), that lunatics of the class alluded to by him should be excluded from ordinary county asylums. Of that there could be no question. His hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) had presented them with a very careful and clear comparison; but he feared that he had pressed the matter too far. From his experience of county asylums, he was persuaded that patients in Broadmoor did require much more attendance and care than ordinary lunatics. Though, of course, some of the expenses might be very much reduced, still, from the nature of the building itself, it was impossible to make them as small as they were in county asylums, while to sweep away the prison altogether would only be going further and faring worse.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTpointed out that his right hon. Friend, in his desire not to mix up the innocent with the guilty in the Government prison, had done the very thing which he wished to avoid, by mixing up the innocent and the guilty in the county asylums. As his right hon. Friend had
    1458
    taken over all the prisons in the country, he considered that he, or his Department, was bound to provide some accommodation for those persons who had become insane after some sentence of imprisonment had been passed upon them. His right hon. Friend had said that the counties ought to provide for their own criminal lunatics. But they had nothing to do with those undergoing sentences. But there were persons who had undergone sentence, and whose sentences were expired, who also, as he had explained, ought not to be in county asylums. Then came the question, what was to be done with them? He did hope his right hon. Friend would make some provision for these unfortunate people.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained, that he only said that the counties must provide for these lunatics. He quite agreed that while they were under sentence the Government must undertake the care of them. But when that sentence had expired, these persons became ordinary lunatics, and the care of them devolved on the counties.
    MR. FLOYERfelt himself much indebted to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) for bringing forward this question, for everyone who had had anything to do with the management of county asylums knew that one of the greatest difficulties they had to contend with was the care and guarding of these criminal lunatics. They could not stop escapes without a very much larger staff of attendants than was otherwise necessary, or unless they practised a system of confinement which, happily, was now a thing of the past. Escapes, therefore, did happen. Yet, when they had to deal with these criminal lunatics, it was very important that they should not escape, as such an accident might be attended with very serious consequences. Men suffering from homicidal or murderous propensities might escape, and it was very difficult in ordinary county asylums to take such effectual precautions as would absolutely prevent escapes. He did, therefore, venture to press upon the Home Secretary the very great importance and necessity of making such provision as his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had suggested. Usually the number of criminal lunatics in the country was very small; and it was almost impossible, without very great and unneces-

    1459
    sary expense, to make proper provision in those asylums for these persons. It had been suggested that two prisons, one in the North and one in the South, should be devoted to the reception of this particular class; and he thought that accommodation would be adequate, and something which it was very desirable should be granted. Undoubtedly, the experiment conducted at Broadmoor had been, up to the present time, of a very expensive character. For instance, there were two clerks and two assistant clerks to keep the books, and in that point he thought there might be some reduction made. Certainly, he knew from his own experience that one clerk was quite sufficient for the work, if it were only done in a proper and ordinary way. He admitted, with his hon. and gallant Friend, that more attendants were requisite than in an ordinary asylum to deal with these criminal lunatics. Still, there was great room for reduction of expenditure, and he was glad to hear that the Home Secretary was doing his best to bring it about. They all know the practical ability and knowledge of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter); and he, therefore, hoped that this conversation would not be without some result.
    MR. RAMSAY, having on more than one occasion called attention to this matter himself, was glad that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had brought it now before the Committee. The expense of one prison under the management of the Home Secretary ought not to be greater than another, and until that result was arrived at hon. Members would do well to continue to debate the Vote. He had himself visited Broadmoor in order to discover what was the cause of this great difference in expense, and certainly he thought there was nothing in the arrangement of the building which justified it. It was quite true that criminal lunatics did require greater attention and restraint than ordinary patients in county asylum; but, then, the persons confined in Broadmoor were not at all of that class. However insane they might have been at the time of their trial, many of them certainly were not now insane; and, therefore, the expense incurred for their maintenance and detention was not greater than that required fur an ordinary insane person.
    1460
    He did hope that the right hon. Gentleman, having turned his attention to the cost of Broadmoor, would continue his efforts in the direction of economy until he was able to present an Estimate reduced by at least one-half from that now before them.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKasked, if it was worth while to spend so much time about a few lunatics at Broadmoor, when there were so many others in the country? This was a very small Vote, and a peculiar Vote. These were persons who had been declaimed by doctors to be insane, and not to understand the nature of the crime which they had attempted or committed. They were, as a consequence, taken care of and sent to Broadmoor, in order to prevent the possibility of their committing the same crime again. It was easy to find fault; but it was not so easy to manage a prison of this kind. He did not object to the Vote, for it must always be an expensive and troublesome matter to look after persons of this description.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, after the statement of the Home Secretary, he should not think of pressing his Motion to a Division, for it was satisfactory in every way. He knew the right hon. Gentleman was most anxiously desirous to keep down expenditure. He had the greatest confidence in him and in the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and he believed they would be able to make considerable reductions. He should look forward with confidence to the next Estimate, and would now ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (3). £49,613, to complete the sum for the Lord Advocate and Criminal Proceedings, Scotland.
    MR O'DONNELLwished to ask a question with reference to Dundee. He should be glad to know how far the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had proceeded in dealing with the recent riots in Dundee? Catholics were very much indebted to the Law Officer for Scotland for the fair-minded and courteous way in which he had answered the Question put to him some time ago on this subject; but there was a good deal of curiosity felt by them to know how the affair was going on now. It seemed

    1461
    that there had been a public meeting in Dundee, a few days ago, to discuss the question, from which he gathered that the Lord Advocate was making some inquiries. Had anything been decided upon? Of course, if the thing was still pending, he would not harass the Lord Advocate by pressing the question. In calling attention to the disturbances, he (Mr. O'Donnell) was actuated in no way by any desire to restrain the fullest freedom of discussion on all questions, religious and political; but what the Catholics and a great many of the Protestants of Dundee complained of was, that the mask of religious discussion was merely assumed by a low adventurer and impostor to commit a gross outrage upon the religious convictions of a section of the population. He understood from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that the Scotch law was broad enough and strong enough to deal with a case of this kind, and he merely wished to know if the inquiries were ended, and if any proceedings were to be taken?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he discussed this matter with the Lord Advocate at some length before it was brought to the notice of the House; and the answer given by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, which was so satisfactory to the House and the public generally, was the result of that confer-once. Of course, the Government had not the least desire to interfere with the right of free discussion, when properly and fairly exercised. With regard to the present state of affairs, the Lord Advocate had gone to Scotland during the Recess to make some inquiries. He expected him to have returned that evening; but, as he had not yet returned, he (Mr. Cross) could not, at present, answer the question.
    MR. RYLANDSregretted that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was absent; because it was, of course, under such circumstances, rather unreasonable to press the Government for information. Still, he must call attention to the salaries of the procurators fiscal. He thought it had been arranged, in the year 1850, that these gentlemen were to be paid by salaries instead of fees, these salaries being fixed upon a calculation as to the average income derived from the fees of previous years, which, according to the Scotch language
    1462
    used, was received for business "chargeable in Exchequer." It seemed, however, that the procurator fiscal did other work, not chargeable in Exchequer, but chargeable to county rates. That business was not included in the salaries. They continued to receive the fees chargeable on the county, and they were also allowed to receive other fees from private parties for prosecutions under special statutes. From these two sources it would be seen that the procurators fiscal derived sums of money which were set forth in the Estimates under the heading "remuneration ex-officio," in addition to salaries voted. The Return was peculiar. In Clackmannan, for instance, the procurator fiscal received a salary of £400 a-year, and from other fees received £50 a-year; whereas in Airdrie, where the salary was £570 a-year, the other fees only produced £9 3s. There were similar discrepancies to be observed throughout the Estimate, showing that in some counties there was very little of the business chargeable to the county rates, and that very few fees were derived from private prosecutions; whereas these fees in other counties considerably increased the remuneration of the procurator fiscal. He observed that the procurators fiscal of Edinburgh and Glasgow had declined to give any Return to the Government of the amount they received from these sources. He thought the Government ought to insist upon receiving a Return. The whole system of payment appeared to him to be open to serious objection; and it appeared to him that the Government would do well to get rid of the payment by fees, and to do away with the arrangement by which they were paid in this way under special statutes. With regard to these fees for prosecutions under special statutes, he should like to know, also, what they were?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas exceedingly sorry that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was not present to give a better answer upon this point than he could give. While he could not say under what statutes these fees were allowed, he thought the Return showed that they were only received in cases where the public duties of the procurator fiscal permitted him to undertake the duties for which they were received. It was only when the work for which he was paid by salary

    1463
    was not so important as to occupy his whole time that he was allowed to derive profits from other work. With regard to the Edinburgh official, he thought he had made a proper Return. He had explained that he had no remuneration from either of these private sources, and he imagined that was the explanation of the Glasgow case as well. The word "Nil" should have appeared in the printed Papers, instead of the words "No return." He would look into this question of the procurators fiscal, and, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) wished it, give him fuller explanations on Report.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHexplained, that the procurator fiscal was alone responsible for the prosecution of certain offences in Scotland, and he pursued for penalties and recovered certain fees in connection with these prosecutions. The hon. Member for Burnley's (Mr. Rylands's) observations raised an important question regarding procurators fiscal; and it would be remembered that, in the discussion two years ago on the Sheriffs Courts Bill, the majority of Scottish Members present expressed their opinion, and recorded it by a Division, that these gentlemen should confine themselves to their public duties. He (Mr. Eraser-Mackintosh) thought they should be appointed by the Crown, pro-perlypaid, and required to discharge their public duties and no others.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate might not return in time to enable the hon. Gentleman to give the further information he had so courteously promised, and he (Mr. Rylands) would be glad to rest content with the promise that the subject should receive the attention of the Treasury. He understood that promise to be implied in what had been said. [Sir HENRY SELWIX-IBBBTSON assented.] If the matter was considered at the Treasury, he believed certain good might be done. He did not like to see gentlemen in an official position having receipts which were not in the form of salary, and he thought the Returns should be complete, or some explanation given.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, some system of this kind was being introduced into England, and he hoped they would be very careful how they took it in hand, for it would certainly be a great expense, especially if the whole thing was not
    1464
    properly planned. They had many things cheaper in Scotland than in England; but before they took up a system of procurators fiscal they had better count the cost, and take care to see what they were about.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £45,931, to complete the sum for Courts of Law and Justice, Scotland.
    MR. W. HOLMSsaid, he would like to call the attention of the Committee to the way in which some of these salaries were made up. For instance, under the head of "Court of Sessions," it was shown that out of 58 clerks 17 either had incomes from annuities, or fees from private practice, or enjoyed a plurality of offices. He thought this was altogether a wrong system. It was well to know distinctly who were and who were not the servants of the Crown, and to have, instead of 58 persons who would give a divided attention to their duties, a smaller number who would bestow upon their work an undivided attention. One assistant clerk, who was paid under this Vote £475 a-year, had also £275 as a "Circuit Clerk in Justiciary." He could not satisfactorily attend to both these offices. Then, £700 was paid to the Auditor of the Court. It was evident that he received a considerable amount of fees, for it was explained in a note to the Estimates that of the amount he received for extra-judicial remits it was difficult to say "the amount he received ex officio." He (Mr. W. Holms) thought it absurd that the Auditor of the Court should have a considerable amount of fees from private work. It was a very unsatisfactory state of things, for if an Auditor was allowed to have private work, the Government had no control over his work.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the question had been discussed at considerable length in previous Sessions. He could only repeat the argument then offered—that it was often of advantage to the Public Service to get the services of a man of large experience to undertake certain work, even though he had been employed in some other Office, or had some private work. In many cases, a man might be in receipt of fees from other sources; but it did not by any means follow that he neglected his public duties, or that he did not comply with the regulations of his Office as to the

    1465
    number of hours he should give to the Public Service in return for the salary paid him. The real cause of this information being given was that the House, some years ago, was anxious to ascertain as far as possible what the actual emoluments were, from all sources, of all public servants. In working that out, every official was asked whether he was in receipt of any sort of official salary other than that which he received from his post? Of course, they were not able to give the amounts where men were of literary habits and made money in that way; but, wherever the facts could be obtained, they were printed in the notes. In some cases, as, for instance, that of the Auditor to the Court, a man was not wanted for the whole of his time, and they got much better men by allowing them, when their services were not required by the Government, to augment their income from other sources. If they were to draw a hard-and-fast line, they would very often either lose the services of very valuable public servants, or they would have to pay very much higher salaries than were at present charged on the Estimates.
    MR. RYLANDSthought the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had rather missed the point of the remark. He presumed that they offered certain fair salaries for the public duties, and not such salaries as a man of suitable capacity would not be likely to take. They professed to offer a salary capable to secure the ability fitted for the office. Then they had a right to ask the individual for a return of all he received from the State, either as salary for duties, or as compensation for loss of office. Of course, they did not ask what were his private emoluments. He always understood, also, that a pension became merged in a salary, if the receiver of the pension returned to the Public Service. For instance, the Prime Minister at the present time was in receipt of a salary as Prime Minister, and that merged his pension as a Cabinet Minister. He could mention a great many instances in which the same principle was carried out; and, therefore, he did not understand how these clerks and assistant clerks could be in receipt of annuities varying from £80 to £160 a-year, which were, in fact, pensions received by them as late Judges' clerks, which, apparently, did not merge in their salaries. He did not quite understand why that was so,
    1466
    and he certainly thought there ought to be some good reason for it. With regard to the auditor, the Secretary to the Treasury did not appear to him to have quite answered the objection. The note to the "Vote was—
    "the Auditor receives a considerable amount of fees for extra-judicial remits and other business, but he has difficulty in stating separately the amount he receives ex-officio."
    If that meant that, practically, he made such largo profits that he was unable to give particulars, as he supposed it did, then, of course, they could not call upon him to make a return of then. But he might ask, also, the very plain question, whether they ought to appoint, at a salary of £700 a-year, a gentleman who received such a very large amount of fees from his private practice that he could not state the amount? Practically, he had no doubt that this gentleman was making a very large income, and it created a suspicion that the work he was doing outside was, probably, a good deal more remunerative than that for which they were paying him.
    MR. RAMSAYpointed out that the question involved in this case was, whether the State should employ any gentleman who undertook professional duties in addition to his official work, and was, therefore, the same as that just raised in regard to the procurators fiscal. He rose to ask the Home Secretary whether he was able to give them any information as to the view he had taken regarding the office of Sheriff, and, also, whether he had come to any conclusion as regarded the constitution of the Court of Session? There was one vacancy in that Court at present; but he thought there was no reason why there should not be a greater number of vacancies, if they should occur. He had no desire to urge the Home Secretary to make any appointment to the vacant office. But while he thought the number of Judges in excess of that required for the discharge of public business, he was of opinion that a permanent alteration in the number of the Judges must be accompanied by some variation in the present constitution of the Court. The number of Judges who sat to hear appeals would have to be smaller. There were four, at present, and that was too many. It would be also interesting to know whether the Home Secretary had yet seen his way to reduce the number of

    1467
    Sheriffs-Substitute in any district in Scotland where he might be of opinion that the duties wore so light as not to require that the office should be filled up when vacant. Nothing, so far as he (Mr. Ramsay) had been informed, had yet been done in the way of reducing the number of the Sheriffs-Substitute, although the right hon. Gentleman promised to give his best consideration to this matter when the Sheriffs Court Bill was before them.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I really cannot give the Committee any information that we have arrived at any definite decision in regard to these matters. We have shown our inclination, as far as the Court of Session is concerned, by allowing the vacancy to remain open so long, and I think hon. Gentlemen will be able to conclude pretty much from this what our views are in this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate undertook, in the Recess, to make further, inquiries, not only as to the Court of Session, but as to the Sheriffs-Substitute. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that no step has been taken. In one case, I think, a reduction has been made.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHhere rose to say that there had been no fewer than two reductions in the North, where there were great complaints in consequence. He referred to Nairn and Tain.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: It appears that there are two cases, and I was just going to say that one case was in my mind, because we had many complaints as to the action we had taken. That, however, is not proof of an insuperable objection. Time will show what can best be done, and where it should be done. There are difficulties, in some places, owing to the long distances between populous places in some parts of Scotland. What I have said will show that the matter has not been lost sight of.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, in reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), that he thought it would be a hard case if there was to be no superannuation at all for officers re-entering the Public Service. It was the rule that pensions granted to public servants should not exceed the total amount of the salaries before received; but, in the cases referred to by the hon. Member, it would be depriving them of what was practically given for life, to
    1468
    refuse the grants made under particular statutes, and compensation for loss on the abolition of offices previously held. It really amounted to this—the hon. Member was anxious to get officers at a fixed salary, and it might be possible to get men without any other other occupation; but it very often happened that men could be got who had a far greater amount of knowledge, who would give the same amount of time to the Public Service, and who were in receipt of these compensations, or, being in private practice, derived emoluments from that source. By this means, the public obtained the services of men of greater experience than could be secured by the payment of salary only, as in some instances that cropped up last year. The public time was not trenched upon, and often a more efficient servant was obtained. With regard to the services of an Auditor, that was one of those cases in which they must have a man of a certain position and knowledge. The duty of auditing a particular Office was not one that should occupy the entire time of an individual. The higher class of public servant only could be employed, and the Public Service obtained from him all that could be expected, whoever he might be. It was almost to be regretted that so much information had been given with regard to salaries which were not in all cases paid out of the public funds.
    MR. RAMSAYhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would not allow local clamour in every district to prevail, but would take into consideration each case on its merits, and judge it on the evidence that might arise. As to the office of Sheriff-Substitute, he was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman yielded in one case to local clamour. He trusted that would not occur again, because, when Sheriffs-Substitute had been elected, they had been generally well fitted for the offices for which they were chosen. It was absurd to speak of long distances, as if these were inconvenient or of any disadvantage to the Sheriff. He (Mr. Ramsay) lived in a district where they had to travel 200 miles to any Court of Law, and he believed there was no district where there was less of crime and less of litigation than in that locality. He could, therefore, speak as to the possibility of some of these offices being dispensed with whenever an op-

    1469
    portunity occurred, and trusted that public clamour would not be allowed to prevent the saving of public money on the occurrence of vacancies.
    SIR ANDREWLUSKbelieved it to be a good thing that people should have to travel 200 miles to a Court of Law. The commercial classes in this country had formed the opinion that the Courts of Session in Scotland and the Irish Courts were over-manned, and that the expense connected with them was out of all proportion to the amount of work which they had to get through. Litigation in this country could not be always avoided, and it was the complaint of the commercial class, who were sometimes engaged in it through circumstances over which they had no control, that they were kept waiting too long for justice, and that there were so many men in the various Courts who had nothing to do but to create all kinds of obstruction. He was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary say that time would be taken to consider whether the vacancy in the Court of Session should be filled up or not, for even in London many people were beginning to think that the number of Judges was too great for the work that had to be done. A great deal of time was taken up by the Courts of Appeal where, perhaps, five or six Judges were occupied with some Church of England or parish scandal, to the detriment of the commercial classes, who could not get their eases tried.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH, with respect to the statement that there were too many Judges in Scotland, said, he was not now going to give an opinion; but as the Vote included the Judges' salaries, he would be very sorry this discussion closed without any Scottish Member getting up, as he was happy to do, and recording his praise of the was business was managed in the Court of Session. Of late years, the business of the Court of Session had been conducted with very great ability indeed. The City of Glasgow Bank closed its doors early in October last, and the numerous important cases arising out of the stoppage had been promptly, but carefully, disposed of by the Court of Session, and had been determined by the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor said, and said very rightly, that there was seldom so much ability displayed as in the Court of Session.
    MR. ASSHETON CBOSSdesired to add his testimony to the ability of the Court of Session. It was a great honour to Scotland.
    MR. O'DONNELLasked for an explanation of items under sub-head D for Sheriffs, as well as for the Procurator Fiscal, who was paid by a salary of £3,000. It seemed, as a rule, that there were very few salaries paid to officers; while a number of curious fees of all kinds were mentioned, of which, in some cases, there were no returns.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the remarks of the hon. Member were out of place, the Vote to which he was referring having been already passed.
    MR. BIGGARwas bound to say that the balance of argument was entirely in favour of Government officials not taking private business. He gave full weight to the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury, with regard to the necessity of getting good men for the Public Service; but he could not help feeling that those men who had private business to attend to would often perform their public duties in a most careless manner, their offices in that way becoming sometimes little else than sinecures. There were, for instance, in Ireland, such offices as Clerk of the Peace and Clerk of the Crown, where gentlemen received salaries and had, at the same time, private practice, the actual business of the Crown being done by a clerk at a small salary, while another gentleman received a large salary for doing nothing. It would, in his opinion, be much better that those public servants should give their whole time to the service of the Crown, and receive salaries in proportion to the work which they performed; on the other hand, if there was not sufficient occupation for the persons appointed, the offices should be abolished. With regard to the question of pensions—which he thought the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had explained in an unsatisfactory manner—he was of opinion that gentlemen should not have an opportunity of retiring from an official position upon a pension, unless it was shown to the satisfaction of the authorities that they were incapacitated for performing the duties of their office; while the system of giving pensions to young men who might last out a generation was, to his mind, thoroughly preposterous.
    MR. W. HOLMSasked for information with regard to the sum of £1,500 paid to Crown Agents for the investigation of peerages. He would be glad to know whether these were officers of the Crown, or professional men in private practice, and whether the details of charge on page 237 referred to the investigation of dormant peerages? If the latter was the case, why was not the expense paid by the claimants?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained, that the charges in question were paid under an old statute of Anne for inquiries in the matter of peerages, and, as he believed, they were made payable by the Crown in order to protect the public. The inquiries were of a public character, for the purpose of ascertaining the validity of claims; but he regretted his inability to say why the expenses were not payable by the claimants.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEcorroborated the statement of the hon. Baronet, a relative of his having discharged the duties in question. It was considered necessary that somebody should be employed by the Government to see justice done, and that it should not be left to private persons alone to advance claims to peerages.
    MR. W. HOLMSinquired by whom these officers were appointed?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that they were appointed by the Crown.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £27,268, 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 Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEwished to ask the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Government had come to any decision with regard to the very large surplus which arose on the fees of this Department? The present was not a Vote of public money for the maintenance of the Register House, but was a payment out of a very large sum received for different fees for the work done in the Department, the surplus of which the Government were under statutory obli-
    1472
    gation to apply, either in increasing the efficiency of the Department, or in the reduction of future fees. The hon. Baronet might be aware that some years ago a considerable reduction actually took place, in pursuance of the statute, and that very efficient relief was given to those who previously paid. The surplus would next year amount to £10,000, the present Vote being for £36,000, while the anticipated receipts were £46,000. He thought it was high time that something was done by the Government in the direction of a considerable reduction
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONassured the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Colebrooke) that the subject had already occupied the attention of the Government, and in particular of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, during the visit which he had paid to Edinburgh not very long ago; his inquiries having resulted in the opinion that a considerable revision of the Office was necessary. Although the surplus was not quite so large as that mentioned by the hon. Baronet, still, he quite admitted that the Estimates showed a probable saving of something like £9,000; but the hon. Baronet was aware that if necessary changes had to take place in the Office, such changes were very generally attended with increased salaries, and it would be hardly prudent, until those changes were settled, to promise any distinct reduction in the fees. He again assured the hon. Baronet and the Committee that the question had not been lost sight of, and that he hoped soon to be able to make a considerable reduction in the direction indicated.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, as there was at present a Bill before the House for the purpose of regulating the Office of Lord Clerk Register, he thought it desirable that the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry SIR-win-Ibbetson) should agree to postpone the consideration of the Vote until the House had had an opportunity of discussing the provisions of that Bill. It appeared to him to be rather a singular step that the Committee should be asked to vote this large sum of money for the purpose of perpetuating the Office on its present footing; while, at the same time, there was a Bill in hand, the object of which was to reduce the duties of the Office. It would be admitted that as

    1473
    far as the objections taken by the Scotch Members were concerned, they were worthy of consideration, and that no time would be lost by their endeavour to secure some amendment of this Department. The Home Secretary introduced a Bill last year for the purpose of appointing an Assistant Secretary of State for Scotland. A Secretary of State for Scotland, with a seat in the Cabinet, would be what all Scotchmen would desire. Such a Minister would aid in securing attention to Scottish business. He thought they had a right to complain of the fees charged in the Register Office. Considering the large sums of money which came in from the owners of real estate in Scotland, it was not a sufficient reason for continuing to charge the same rate of fees as hitherto, simply to say that the surplus was not so great as had been stated by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke). He believed the surplus actually amounted to £9,800, and that sum had been gathered from the owners of real property in Scotland; besides which, Scotch Members had been asked for, and did vote, a large amount for the registration of real estate in England. It was, therefore, difficult to understand why the Secretary to the Treasury should at all doubt the propriety of considering the whole question of the system of Scotch registration, leaving hon. Members free to consider what should be done when the Bill now before the House reached the stage of a second reading. There were many persons who took a great interest in the settlement of this question; and his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who was then absent on public business, had given Notice of a Motion either for the postponement or reduction of the Vote. In his (Mr. Ramsay's) opinion, an opportunity should be given to hon. Members for the purpose of having the whole Office considered; and he trusted the hon. Baronet would accept his suggestion of postponing the Vote altogether until the Bill before the House had been carried through. He would not, however, make a Motion to that effect, because he was unwilling to waste the time of the House by taking a Division.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not agree to the suggestion of the
    1474
    hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) for the postponement of the Vote. He did not think that, in the present state of Public Business, they would advance their position very much, by a postponement until the House had decided upon the Bill which had been submitted. If that Bill became law, he need not say that any changes introduced thereby would be operative as against the Estimate then under discussion, and that if any reduction took place the effect would be that the money saved would pass into the Exchequer. Again, looking at the position of Public Business, if the Vote Were postponed, they could hardly hope to raise a discussion at the end of the Session. When the changes which it might be found necessary to introduce were settled, and when it was ascertained what further expense would result from those changes, he should be very glad to reconsider the table of fees charged in connection with this Office, with a view to their reduction; but he could hardly promise that reduction until those questions had been adjusted. It very often happened that the surplus was used up by expenses of the establishment, for which demands were from time to time made upon the Treasury. The future position of the question would in no way be prejudiced by the passing of the Vote, to the postponement of which he hoped the Committee would not agree.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, he was very much disappointed that the hon. Gentleman had not agreed to the suggestion which had been made to the Committee by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), as last year this Vote would have been challenged had not the Home Secretary promised to go down and inquire, and it was distinctly understood that something was to be clone. The hon. Baronet must be quite aware that there existed a great deal of dissatisfaction in Scotland on the subject of the Register House, in regard to the fees exacted in that Office. One of the reasons for which he (Mr. Eraser-Mackintosh) thought the Vote should be postponed was that hon. Members were entitled, when discussing Scottish Votes, to the presence of the Lord Advocate and also the Home Secretary, so that they might tell the House what they intended to do; for it appeared quite clear that if

    1475
    they allowed the Vote to pass on the present occasion, it would go off in the same manner as last year, and nothing would be done. The agitation in regard to the fees in the Register House was one that had been going on for a great many years, and the surplus that had accrued on one occasion had been as much as £16,000 in a-year, while it had seldom been less than £8,000. The amount of fees drawn was growing every year, and it was nonsense to say that the time had not arrived when a great reduction should be made, for that time was long since past. Among the Votes for that Office he saw a sum of £1,200 a-year for the Lord Clerk Register; but it had been intimated that the present holder of the Office was to have no salary. Again, the Keeper of the Registry of Sasines received £1,000 a-year. They heard a great deal from the hon. Baronet about having good men of social position and ability to fill Government offices; but he understood that this gentleman never attended to his duties at all, and his appointment was so glaring that it had been struck at, as a thing never again to take place, by a special Act of Parliament. If nothing came of it, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1.000. The point he had mentioned was one on which many of them were unanimous, and he suggested that the hon. Baronet should postpone the Vote, the more particularly as the hon. Member for Edinburgh had not been able to be present during the discussion; and if that course was pursued, he believed the hon. Baronet would find he was not delaying, but rather advancing matters.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £26,268, 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 Offices in Her Majesty's General Register House, Edinburgh."—(Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh.)
    DR. CAMERONsaid, the whole question before the Committee lay in a nutshell. There was derived from the fees charged in Scotland, for the registry of transfers, a sum of money which more than paid all the expenses of the Office, and left a surplus of something like £10,000, and that surplus went into the Imperial Treasury, which it was contended by the
    1476
    Scotch Members was not right. The subject had been brought forward on several former occasions; and he remembered having assisted on one of those occasions three years or four years ago, at which time he had sent to the right hon. Gentleman the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith), who then occupied the position now held by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), a number of reports which had been drawn up by the various legal bodies, and which comprised plans for the removal of the causes of complaint with regard to the Office, and suggestions for increasing the efficiency of the system. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury of the day took the papers, and almost undertook to read them; but, of course, nothing came of it for he was promoted to another Office, and "a King arose who knew not Joseph." So the matter went on year after year; but it was not a question which was in any way affected by the Lord Clerk Register (Scotland) Bill, which was a Bill for consolidation, and affected the salary of another Department solely, doing away with an Office which was, more or less, of the nature of a sinecure, and re-arranging various Offices with a view to greater economy and efficiency. The Bill did not concern the Office about which the Committee were discussing, and the excuse put forward did not amount to any just reason why the question should not be at once decided. There were two ways of dealing with the question. One, the simplest, was to reduce the fees by the amount of the surplus which accrued every year; and the other, and it appeared to him the preferable way, was to institute improvements in the Office, not by way of increasing the salaries, but by way of more efficient registration, and by the adoption of a system which had been tried with great satisfaction in Glasgow and elsewhere—the system of "search-sheets." When that had been suggested before, the answer always was that it would require money; but why should they not take the surplus £10,000 to make the experiment with? The two systems could be run simultaneously, so that if one did not answer it could be discontinued. He understood perfectly well that the Secretary to the Treasury, in the absence of the Lord Advocate, could hardly be expected to pronounce

    1477
    any opinion on the matter; and all that they asked was that, under the circumstances of the case, the hon. Baronet should agree to the very reasonable course of postponing the Vote. If the matter would be arranged, he would not wish to say another word; and, therefore, he asked that the Vote should not be pushed forward, but that it should be postponed until, the Lord Advocate being present, they would have an opportunity of consulting him. He did not think the Scotch Members would be found obstructive; but really the proposal for the postponement of the Vote was so reasonable that he should feel justified in supporting any Motion for adjournment that might be made upon it.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas sorry to appear unreasonable in pressing the Vote upon the Committee; but he ventured to submit that the question could not be met oven by the knowledge or presence of the Lord Advocate, inasmuch as it entirely rested in the hands of the Treasury to deal with it in accordance with the Act of Parliament. And it was because the Treasury had to act in the matter that he had stated he was prepared to admit the justice of the claim made, when the time should arrive for its revision. But he had also stated, not that the Bill mentioned had nothing to do with the question, but that the Government could not proceed to deal with the fees at once, because they had been making that very inquiry which hon. Members seemed to think the Treasury had ignored from year to year. That inquiry had been made with the view of altering and amending this particular Office, and of meeting the complaints which had been made on more than one occasion, and with the view of carrying out also, as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had suggested, a better mode of indexing and keeping the records, not as superseding the present system, but as running parallel with it, and in order to make the work better and more useful. The plan had not only been considered by the Treasury, but had been very far advanced towards carrying out; but what he had before stated he was still obliged to maintain, that he could not definitely say he could alter the present system of fees until the result of the proposed changes was known, at which time he should be quite prepared to consider
    1478
    what should be done in the matter of restricting the fees. He ventured to think that a pledge of that kind on behalf of the Treasury should give some satisfaction to those who were concerned in the matter, and show them that the object was not to get it postponed for another year. With regard to the Register, he could state that indexing arrangements, which, he trusted, would be satisfactory, had been agreed to and were about to be carried out; and, therefore, it was to be hoped that the Committee would see there were no grounds for any further postponement. Had the Lord Advocate been present, he believed nothing more could have been said on the subject of this particular Vote.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEthanked the hon. Gentleman for his statement; but he was obliged to qualify the expression of the satisfaction which he felt at hearing that the subject was engaging the earnest attention of the Government by saying that he had not the highest confidence that things would move as rapidly as he could wish, because, judging by the past, he did not think the Treasury had shown any great zeal in carrying out urgently-needed reforms. At the same time, he was quite content, as the matter had been really taken in hand, to leave it in its present position. He thought, however, that the Committee had been unfairly placed, by the absence of the Lord Advocate, with regard to inquiries which it might have been desirable to make as to the establishment and working of the system which would necessarily have some influence upon the nature of the reforms which were to be carried out; and he was of opinion that if they did not go so far as to postpone the Vote, at any rate the Report might be brought on after the Lord Advocate had returned to town. With regard to the searching department, he was certain this could be improved in the matter of the indices, one of the great features of the reform carried out about 10 years ago being that those indices were sent out for completion to the different counties without burdening Edinburgh with the whole of the expense. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could say anything upon this point, j which was exciting a considerable amount of interest in his neighbourhood.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped that the debate and the speech which had followed on the part of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury would be accepted not in the light of an ordinary pledge, but as a proof that action was really going forward. As a result of what took place in the debate last Session, he went down to Edinburgh and proceeded through the Registry Offices with the Lord Advocate; and he (Mr. Cross) felt bound to express his thanks to every officer connected with the Department for the ready information which they had afforded him upon every subject of inquiry. He had gone thoroughly and completely into every department; and with regard to the question of the indices, he was sorry to find, in certain instances, they were in arrear. Upon that subject, no doubt, there had been considerable difficulty, as well as some feeling, which had materially interfered with the preparation of the records. He did not think anything could be better, in their way, than the search-sheets, which were most valuable, and saved a great deal of time in searching for titles. Under that system one book was posted up into another day by day, after the manner of bankers' or merchants' accounts, and, finally, into the ledger, in which the whole of any transaction could be seen at a glance. This compilation was extremely useful, though it was necessary to be very careful that nothing was missed from the search-sheets, as, in that case, the error would possibly not be discovered for years afterwards. In his opinion, it was absolutely for the interest of the country that the search-sheets, on which Mr. Brodie, the then holder of the office, had spent so much time and labour, should be continued; but it was also his opinion that the statutory indices should be kept up as well. Those indices ought to be made as perfect as possible, for no great mass of literature was of any use without the key to it. Some of the Scotch officials preferred one plan, and some the other; but his view was that both plans should be carried on concurrently. As it had been found that considerable confusion existed on account of the unsatisfactory condition of the indices, the Treasury had consented to every proposition which he had made; and he hoped that in a few months, inconsequence of the
    1480
    action which had been taken, the indices would be completely and properly posted up to the present time, which he was sure would effect a great improvement in the system of registration. With regard, however, to the question of cost, he was not quite certain. Neither could he give any opinion at that moment whether it was better to reduce the fees, or improve the efficiency first. But if he were personally applied to, he should say—"First make your Registry House as efficient as possible, and then look for a reduction of fees." The next thing would be to establish a reserve, because every now and then there were extraordinary expenses to be provided for; but, beyond making ample provision and keeping in hand such reserve as might be necessary, he was strongly of opinion that the whole of the remaining surplus should be taken off the fees. That being the case, he had only to remark that the records, of which he had never seen a more valuable collection, were exposed to great risk of destruction by fire; and he was struck more than anything with the circumstance that the clerks were allowed to return to the offices and remain there up to 8 or 9 o'clock at night, in order to work overtime. The clerks had fires in their rooms, and on leaving for the night they were accustomed to rake out the cinders into the grate, which he believed to be a most dangerous practice; while the only precaution attempted was that some porter was supposed to see that the lights were extinguished, and that the fires were raked out. That appeared to be the whole security for these valuable records against fire. In consequence of this he had requested the Inspector to report to him, and the Treasury had also sent down another officer to make a special inquiry. It was, therefore, to be hoped that something had been done to render this most valuable collection secure from destruction by fire. From the circumstances to which he had referred, he believed the Committee would see that they were on the high road to improvement, and that the Treasury were really doing something in the matter.
    MR. C. S. PABKERobserved, that the explanation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was very satisfactory to Scotch Members. Their constituents would be

    1481
    glad to hear that the Government had bonâ fide given their attention to the subject this year, and that the right hon. Gentleman had mastered so many of the details; and as regarded risk of fire they had reason to thank him for the prudence he bad shown. They bad been offered two alternatives. First, that this money should be spent upon rendering the Department more effective; or, secondly, that it should go in diminution of fees. But he thought that the Government should give an assurance more definite in respect of time, that this year, at last, the money should go in one or other of these ways—either that the Department should be made more effective, or that the scale of fees should be revised. The hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, no doubt, felt himself in the position of a guardian of the Imperial Treasury, and bound to take care of its interests; but the money derived from the fees of this Department ought not to go into the Exchequer. It should be applied at once in reduction of the scale of fees or in adding to the efficiency of the Department. He thought, if an explicit promise were made to that effect, it would be more satisfactory and would meet the case.
    MR. BIGGARremarked that £46,000 was received from the Department, and only £36,000 was expended upon it. But that surplus was only nominal, for there were sums to be provided for, such as providing for those who had formerly held office in the Department, which would reduce the surplus to nothing at all. Something had been said in the course of the debate upon the desirability of a Cabinet Minister being appointed to look after the interests of Scotland. In his opinion, such an arrangement would be a waste of money; on the Treasury Bench there was not room for another Secretary of State—the ground was fully occupied as it was by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, and great inconvenience was caused by crowding. There was one point to which he wished to refer—namely, the question of sasines. A salary was taken from the Government by a gentleman for doing entirely nominal work. In his opinion, no Government work should be allowed to be done by deputy, and if work was required to be done, it should be done by the holder of the office him-
    1482
    self. He did not think there was the least grievance in this matter, and considered that the conduct of the Scotch Members was a waste of time.
    MR. RAMSAYwas surprised to bear Scotch Members censured for wasting the time of the House. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he was sure, could not possibly have been guilty of the same waste of time. The suggestion that be (Mr. Ramsay) made, that the Vote should be postponed, was based upon the fact to which be referred—namely, the absence from their places of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate and the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren). In the absence of both those hon. Members, he thought that it would be desirable to postpone the Vote. It had been stated by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury that the passing of this Vote would have nothing whatever to do with the Bill referring to the Office of Lord Clerk Register. Now, one of his reasons for referring to the Bill was that it might be necessary, in altering and improving the system of registration which now existed in Scotland, that some statutory authority for carrying out these changes should be given. It was in order that the Lord Advocate should consider whether anything of the sort should be inserted in the Bill that he had suggested that the Vote should be postponed. The suggestion seemed to him to be so reasonable that he bad hoped that the hon. Baronet would have been willing at once to have acceded to it. The Scottish Representatives generally concurred with him in thinking that that would be the wisest course to take. Still, however, he did not wish to press the matter, and would leave it to the hon. Baronet to decide whether it should be postponed. He would ask him to re-consider his decision, and defer the consideration of this Vote at the present time, in order that the provisions of the Lord Clerk Register Bill might be fairly considered, and that such changes might be introduced into the system of registration in Scotland as were indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He was satisfied that Public Business would be expedited by the course he had suggested being taken; but still, after the explanation the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had been good

    1483
    enough to give them, as to the steps which he had taken with regard to the Department and the protection of documents deposited in the Registry Office, he felt that he was bound to withdraw his proposal, if the hon. Baronet insisted upon it.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKremarked that there were, no doubt, some important questions connected with this Vote; but the right hon. Gentleman had given a statement of what had been already done with regard to the Office, and what it was proposed to do, and, in his opinion, nothing more could be desired. The right hon. Gentleman stated that he had been down, and had himself looked into the matter, and was trying to bring about the results which hon. Members wanted. For these reasons, he appealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh) to withdraw his Motion.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, that in consequence of the statement of the Home Secretary in explanation, he would withdraw his Motion. He thought, however, that they were entitled to that statement without being obliged to make all that fuss about it. He took exception to several of the remarks of the Home Secretary. The Treasury had not to pay the cost of carrying out the recommendations. It would come out of the pockets of the proprietors of lands and houses in Scotland. A thoroughly efficient organization would not, he was informed, cost £2,000 a-year additional, hence a large reduction of the fees could instantly be made. If the Home Secretary insisted on a reserve, it could be pointed out that there had been a large surplus from past years improperly drawn from the class alluded to. He withdrew his Amendment on the understanding that the suggestions of the Home Secretary would be carried out. There was one question he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to, and that was the placing on the Civil Service Lists of all the clerks employed engrossing, or otherwise, in the Register House, with a view to their proper remuneration and ultimate superannuation, as to which great dissatisfaction existed. Memorials from these deserving officials had been presented, and demanded favourable consideration. He should be glad to knew whether the Home Secretary saw his way to a satisfactory settlement of that question?
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that before the Amendment was withdrawn, he would urge upon the Government that it was not only necessary to have an increased efficiency in this Department, but a reduction in the fees. The hon. Member for the Inverness Burghs had stated that £2,000 a-year would be sufficient to complete the organization of the Office. The fees at present paid into the Office would fully meet that expense, allow a reduction on the fees charged, and yet leave a very considerable margin to protect the Treasury from loss. Not only was it necessary that there should he increased efficiency in the Office, but also that the fees in Edinburgh be reduced. After the explanation and assurance which had been given, he thought the Motion might very well be withdrawn, and that they might wait for another year to see what was done.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that an exact paraphrase had been given of what he had himself said. He was anxious about the superannuation of the clerks—some of them he was bound to say, in his opinion, were entitled to superannuation; but there were others whom he conceived to have no such claim. As hon. Members might be aware, there was a difficulty at the present moment, owing to all of those persons not being Civil servants. The question was, however, being discussed, and after the lapse of another year he would be able to speak of it much more fully.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £63,433, 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 Expenses of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, and of the Prisons under their control, including the Maintenance of Criminal Lunatics and the Preparation of Judicial Statistics."
    MR. DODSONsaid, that, perhaps, the Secretary to the Treasury would be good enough to answer some questions with regard to this matter. The same information was not given in the remarks accompanying this Vote as was done in the case of the similar Vote in regard to England. It was upon that matter he wished to ask some questions. He

    1485
    wished to know the number of prisons taken over by Government from the day they first commenced to take them over; what reduction in their number had since been made; and he also wished to know what reduction had been made in the cost of prisons generally since the Government had taken them over? In the Memorandum accompanying the Vote, it was stated that the average cost of prisoners was, per head, £27 4s. He would point out that that was a higher amount than the average cost of a convict in Perth Prison, and £3 or £4 higher than the average cost of a prisoner in the local prisons of Scotland in 1877—the year before the Government took over the prisons. It would seem, therefore, that the average cost of a prisoner under Government had increased instead of diminishing.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYinquired what progress had been made in arriving at a settlement with the local authorities in taking over the prisons?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas afraid that he was not able to give a very good account of what had been done under the Prisons Regulation Act for Scotland. The reduction in the number of prisons in Scotland had not been so great as in England, because of the necessity for enlarging certain of the prisons in Scotland very considerably before they could abolish others. That process entailed not only a very considerable amount of time, but a very large amount of money. The cost of prisoners in Scotland was, no doubt, in excess not only of prisoners in England, but of prisoners formerly in the local prisons. That arose from the inability of the Government to reduce the number of prisons in Scotland in the same proportion as they had reduced them in England; thus the cost of a prisoner in Scotland could not be reduced in the way in which it had been done in England. He believed that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had it in contemplation to enlarge one or two of the prisons in Scotland, and thereby to do away with a considerable number. By that means they would be enabled to make a considerable reduction in the cost of prisoners in Scotland as they had in England.
    MR. DODSONthought that the questions which he had put had hardly been answered. The point which he wished
    1486
    to make was that it appeared from a Memorandum accompanying the Civil Service Estimate that the average cost of a prisoner in Scotland had been estimated at £27 4s. He pointed out that that was a higher amount than, according to the judicial statistics of Scotland, was the cost of a convict in 1877, and that it was a still greater expenditure than the average cost of a prisoner in the local prisons in Scotland in the year 1877, the last year in which the prisons were in the hands of the local authorities. The average cost of a prisoner, as set down in this Memorandum, was £27 4s., and the average gross cost of a prisoner in the local prisons, in 1877, was something like £24, according to the judicial statistics. He thought that there must be some explanation of that, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to give it to them. The other question which he wished to ask was, what was the number of prisons that had been closed since the Government took over the prisons, and what reduction had been made in the total cost of prisons in Scotland since the Government took them over? He was aware that in Scotland there was a certain number of very small prisons; and, no doubt, some would have to be maintained in districts where the population was sparse. It was also probable that some that might eventually be abolished could not be closed until other prisons were enlarged.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he could not answer the questions which had been put at the present time. The Commissioners would, he believed, shortly send in their Report, by which some of the questions asked could be answered. He might observe that in Scotland things were not done in quite the same way as in England. Owing to the amount of prisons, compared with the number of prisoners, it was necessary to do away with a great number; but, owing to the smallness of some of the prisons, they found it impossible to shut up two or three, because those left were too small to take the prisoners. Practically, in Scotland, they would have to build a certain number of fresh prisons altogether. At the present moment the number of prisons which had been closed in Scotland was very small; but a scheme was under consideration, and he would venture to say that after the

    1487
    Commissioners bad made their Report something would be done in the matter. A question bad also been asked as to the arrangements which had been come to with the local authorities. Some difficulty had arisen in this matter from the fact that the cells in Scotland were not certified. It became necessary, therefore, to take some standard by which they could be guided as to whether cells were to be paid for or not. As the Bill was originally drawn, they were to pay for every cell of 700 cubic feet; but the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren)—doubtless bearing in mind that the new prison at Edinburgh did not meet the requirement—objected to the provision. The matter was taken up by a considerable number of Scotch Members, and they stated that they would rather leave the question to be decided by the Secretary of State, as to which were the proper cells, and which were not. That course was adopted; but it had led to a considerable difficulty in the administration, for it was a very hard thing for the Government to say what was the actual value of the cell. They had come to what might be taken as a reasonable solution of the matter, and had fixed a certain amount of cubic feet as the requisite size for the cells to be taken over; every cell under that size would have to be certified as fit for human habitation. He had also been asked to account for the fact that the average cost of a prisoner in Scotland was now £27, a higher amount than appeared under the old system. It was perfectly true that the cost of a prisoner in Scotland was now greater than formerly, and he could not explain the actual difference; but be must point out that in Scotland they had began by increasing and adding to the cost by appointing the Commissioners and Inspectors, and had, as yet, arrived only upon the fringe of the subject. The actual cost of the prisoners had thus been increased; but the extra expenditure bad been caused by the new staff, the benefit of which would be found there after
    MR. DODSONasked, if it was to be understood that, up to the present time, there had been no actual reduction in the total cost?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: None.
    MR. J. W. BABCLAYsaid, he was glad to hear that there was likely to be
    1488
    an arrangement made with regard to the old prisons. He would like, to know whether cells certified by the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor would be taken as now suitable for the reception of prisoners, and would be so certified by the Inspectors? He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that many cells under the standard (700 cubic feet) he had fixed had been certified as suitable by his Predecessors. He hoped that he would consider the cells so certified sufficient under the present Act. Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he would be able to announce his intentions as to the new prisons in Scotland?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that what the hon. Member had said was exactly what he (Mr. Cross) did not mean. He did not intend to adopt any cells which had not been passed by the Inspectors in Scotland; it was not his intention to adopt cells allowed by his Predecessors in Scotland. Under the Scotch Prisons Act there was not such a clause as was contained in the English Prisons Act providing that cells should be certified. As a matter of fact, prisoners were allowed to be kept in certain cells with the knowledge of the Inspector; but those cells were never certified in Scotland as they were in England. The real fact was, that if he were to adopt those cells he would be held up in that House as doing wrong, and as being one of the greatest tyrants that ever existed by permitting prisoners to be put in places not fit for habitation. Another question had been put to him as to when they might expect to begin the new prisons in Scotland. He hoped very soon; but there was great difficulty in putting these matters into the Estimates, arising, as be would point out, from the, at present, very inconvenient system of keeping accounts. Take the prison of the City of Glasgow, for instance; it was a very valuable site, but it was not a good prison, and one he wished to get rid of. But it was necessary he should build a new prison before he got rid of it. For that purpose, he must put into the Estimates some £20,000, £30,000, or £40,000. If he could sell the Glasgow Prison afterwards, the whole of that money would come back to the Exchequer; but by the present mode of keeping accounts, the item of £40,000 on account of the

    1489
    Glasgow Prison, which would be defrayed by the sale of the site, would appear in the Estimates as an extra charge for the year, and cause the Estimate to exceed the previous year by that amount. That seemed to him a very great mistake in the manner of keeping accounts. He hoped by some means or other, in a short time, however, to deal with the City of Glasgow Prison. Before long, also, he trusted in many parts of Scotland to do away with numbers of the smaller gaols that were unfit.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYobserved, that what they complained of in Scotland was that the Home Secretary required them to have better cells than were accepted in England. They were perfectly willing to be placed on the same footing with England; but they did not think it right that they should have to provide a superior cell. The right hon. Gentleman's Predecessors had declared certain cells in prisons to be suitable for the detention of prisoners. He thought those cells ought to be allowed under the present Act, because they were certified by the Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman, and were in themselves very much better in many ways than some of those taken over by the Government in England.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought the hon. Member had misunderstood what he had said. Under the English Act of 1865, cells were certified and given a legal status; but in Scotland there was nothing of that kind. He quite agreed that cells had been passed by the Inspectors, and a certificate given by the Home Office in many cases; but they did not give those cells any legal status. Therefore the legal definition of a certified cell as existing in England did not apply to the cells in Scotland. Coming, however, to the other part of the question, he might say that they had not the slightest intention of dealing more hardly with Scotland than with England, the only object they had in view being to obtain such cells as would be suitable.
    MR. MUNTZdid not think that the Committee was then in a position to discuss the Prisons Vote. The Act ought to be some time in working before its operation could be reasonably discussed. In the course of six or seven years it would have had a fair trial, and then
    1490
    would be the time to discuss what they ought to do. When the Act had been in operation for that period, they would be enabled to see its results. In his opinion, what the Act required to be done at the hands of the Central Government might be much better done by the local authorities. But the House had decided otherwise; and he, therefore, thought that the Act should be given fair play while it was being carried out.
    MR. ERRINGTONthought the salaries of the various officers had been, to a certain extent, calculated upon the number of prisoners and of prisons. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him inconvenient to discuss the question of these salaries unless they had accurate information as to the number of gaols. Was the right hon. Gentleman in a position to state the number?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked, that he had not then the Papers with him, although an Estimate had been made. It was, however, an Estimate to which he did not bind himself. The Inspectors had their salaries calculated according to all the circumstances of the case, and not only to the number of prisoners.
    MR. WHITWELLnoticed an item of £3,000 for additions to the Lunatic Department. He should like to know whether it was intended to have the lunatics in the General Prison?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: The lunatic ward is quite distinct from the General Prison.
    MR. O'DONNELLobserved, that he found that the salaries of persons engaged in religious ministrations in the Perth General Prison, including the chaplains and Scripture readers, male and female, amounted to nearly £700 a-year. The Roman Catholic priest out of that sum was paid only £70 a-year, and he thought that was rather an. inadequate allowance, considering the number of Roman Catholic prisoners. He wished to point out that a priest at one of those prisons must devote a large portion of his time to the prisoners, and the remuneration paid did not seem to him to be sufficient for the services performed by the Roman Catholic chaplain. He believed that the system with regard to persons engaged in religious ministrations to prisoners in the Scottish gaols was far from satisfactory; and in connection with the matter, he would

    1491
    more particularly point to the very inadequate salary paid to the Roman Catholic chaplain at Perth.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that since the Estimates were framed in November, the whole question of religious ministrations to prisoners had been under consideration. They had now come to a conclusion with regard to the principal points, and a scheme embodying them would shortly be adopted. That was the case with regard to England, and he hoped it would shortly be so in the case of Scotland.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the Estimates were put before the House with very little information, under letter D, as to salaries and allowances. In the case of these Scotch prisons, the only details given them, under the head D, were some matters concerning the General Prison at Perth. He supposed that that was taken as a kind of example. He would point out, however, that in the case of the English prisons they had a much larger amount of detail given them. He hoped that next year they would have full details, both as regarded Scotch and Irish prisons.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that at the time the Votes were prepared, it was not possible to give fall details with regard to the Scotch prisons. Before the Estimates for next year were framed, the question of the prisons throughout the country would be placed on a permanent basis, and it would be possible to give all the information the hon. Member required.
    MR. PARNELLhoped that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury would take into consideration the scale of salaries paid to prison officials. When the Vote for English Prisons was under discussion, he moved to reduce the Vote on the ground that the salaries paid to English prison officials were higher than the salaries of Irish officials. He considered this question of the salaries to prison officials a very important matter. He looked at it in this way—if they gave a low salary for a prison official, they necessarily obtained a lower class of persons in the prisons than they would do if the employment was made more remunerative. It was exceedingly necessary that the warders in prisons should be men of a better class than at present, and in order to attract them they must be well paid. It
    1492
    had always appeared to him that the profession of a warder should be very much like that of a schoolmaster. They had in the prisons criminals of various classes; some men hardened in crime—men who had committed enormous offences—but the majority of the prison population was composed of men who had committed an offence for the first time, and who were capable of reformation. If they set warders of an inferior class over such persons, they would simply harden them in crime, instead of reforming them. On the other hand, if the warders were trained, as the teachers in schools were trained, they would have a better class of men, and the prison discipline would be much more satisfactory than at present. He really thought that this question was very much lost sight of. The money for the maintenance of prisons was formerly derived from local sources, and was not voted by Parliament. It was now voted by Parliament, and these matters should be attended to. By keeping the salaries at a low ebb, they would be sure to get an inferior class of warders. If the hon. Baronet would consider the rate of payment to the warders with a view to raise it, he believed that they would be able to obtain a very much better class of warders, who had a great influence in the reformation of the prisoners. Perhaps he might be excused for going into some few matters of detail. By the Prisons Act, 1877, prisons were removed from the jurisdiction of the local authorities and placed under that of the Home Secretary. The Visiting Justices had very extensive powers under the old Prisons Act—the management, dietary, and powers of inspection, together with the appointment of the prison officials and warders, and, in fact, the whole management of the prisons was under their charge. The case was the same in Ireland, and, to a large extent, in Scotland, except that in Scotland the prisons were managed by a Prisons Board, which was composed of Justices. Practically, all the county Justices were upon the Prisons Board, and the management was, therefore, the same as it was in England and Ireland. Naturally, the Justices exercised a very large control over all the warders and Governors under their authority; but now the prisons had been handed over to the Government, and the power had

    1493
    been entirely centralized. Almost all the functions which were formerly performed by the Visiting Justices had now been taken away from them, and they had been left nothing to do. There was a clause in the Prisons Act which described the functions of Visiting Justices, who were by the Act called the Visiting Committee of Justices. That clause appeared only to have been put into the Act pro formâ, in order to let the Justices down as lightly as possible, and to make them think that they had still some functions to perform with regard to prisons. From correspondence he had had, and from inquiries he had made, he had ascertained the view now taken by the Visiting Justices of their functions. They were of opinion that they had really no power at all. Moreover, the Act had been interpreted harshly and rigorously against them, and they had arrived at the conclusion that their duties had been entirely taken away from them.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member that the observations which he was now making were with reference to the English Prisons Vote, and not to the Vote now before the Committee. He understood the hon. Member to be referring to the functions of the Visiting Justices in England, and that certainly was not a matter arising under the present Vote.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, there had been Visiting Committees in connection with the Scotch Prisons, and he thought he should be allowed to refer to the state of affairs as they existed in England in comparison with Scotland. The hon. Member was proceeding to comment upon the evidence of Sir William White, when—
    THE CHAIRMANagain drew the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the statements of Sir William White might be a very proper matter for the consideration of the House on another occasion, or might be a very proper contribution to the discussion on the English Prisons Vote; but it did not seem to him that they were relevant to the Vote now before the Committee. The hon. Member was not, therefore, in Order in going into these matters. The whole question of the prison discipline of the English prisons might be raised if the House went into such matters as the hon. Member was now referring to.
    MR. PARNELL, in deference to the ruling of the Chairman, would not further refer to the evidence of Sir William White. He only wished to point out that the Visiting Committee in Scotland had precisely the same powers, or rather the same want of powers, as they had in England. The Visiting Committee had ceased to take any interest in their functions, for they had been superseded by the interpretation placed upon the Act of 1875 by the Home Secretary. He believed that an interpretation had been placed by the right hon. Gentleman upon the Act which was never contemplated when it was passed. When the present Act was passing through the House, he moved a new clause for the purpose of insuring that the punishments inflicted upon prisoners in gaols should not be done on the sole authority of the gaolers, but with the sanction of the Visiting Committee, in cases where solitary confinement for more than 24 hours was inflicted. There was no difference in this respect between the Scotch and the English Prisons Acts. By the 67th section of the English Prisons Act of 1865, the gaolers could punish prisoners by three days' confinement, and a similar section was in the Scotch Act. It was to limit that power that he moved the clause to which he had alluded; but by the interpretation placed upon it by the Home Secretary it had failed altogether in its effect. Under this system a man could be punished for three days, though the rules said he was not to be kept in the punishment cell for more than 24 hours. The prison authorities claimed the right to shut a prisoner in his own cell for three days, which seemed to him an absurdity. There was nothing in the Act about punishment cells. It simply required that there should be suitable cells provided for the purpose of punishing prisoners condemned to solitary confinement. It would, therefore, appear that this power of the gaoler to punish prisoners by confinement in their cells was a new practice outside the law, and not a practice allowed by the statute at all. It was certainly an illegal practice, and his attention had been a good deal drawn to it. Prisoners who did not "know the ropes" were very often repeatedly punished in this way, until they became so reduced physically that they were unable to do their work, and, as a

    1495
    result, prisoners very often died from the results of this punishment. That was the ease with Nolan, and it was found to be so by the Coroner's jury. Certainly, in future, this power should be restrained to 24 hours, instead of three days; and he was very sorry the Home Secretary was not present, because he knew the matter had occupied his attention, and he should like some assurance that he was making some inquiries into the matter. He hoped the Home Secretary would take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject, and ascertain whether these powers really existed in the hands of the gaoler. If it did, then he must introduce some amending Act, or it would be the duty of some independent Member to do it. The practice should not be tolerated for an instant of allowing gaolers to inflict this penalty. Where it was given, it should be inflicted only by the Visiting Justices, who should try the prisoner for the offence and sentence him. He did not see the least reason why the Visiting Justices should not enjoy power to that extent. This was the last remnant of power they possessed under the Act of 1877, and even that was so interpreted that the Justices had no practical control whatever. There were many other points suggested when the Act was passing through the House, to which the Home Secretary promised to give attention. For instance, he asked that men in the habit of wearing flannels should not be deprived of them when they entered prison. His attention was directed to the matter by the fact that that was the treatment inflicted on several of the political prisoners, and, as they all knew, more than one died in the prison. The Home Secretary promised to make a rule on the matter; but he had not done so. Again, the Home Secretary promised to attend to the question of malingering, which it was very difficult to guard against; but there was an entire absence of any reference to it in the rules. Then, again, prisoners sentenced to short terms, such as 21 days, got a diet which was practically insufficient to support life; and he was informed that in many prisons it was not used, because it was considered to be so. He had touched upon some of the points which he considered worthy of notice; and he trusted, in the absence of the Home Secretary, that the hon. Gen-
    1496
    tleman the Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give them some assurances on the subject.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, all these subjects had occupied the attention of the Home Secretary, and he knew that his right hon. Friend had thoroughly studied all these rules and regulations. The Committee must, of course, be aware that the rule was not to make much of prisoners, and the principle to be observed was that they should be so treated that no injury was done to their health. As to the question raised by the hon. Gentleman, that warders should be of the educational rather than of the strict guardian type, that was a very wide question, which went much further than the mere case of the warder. They must consider what their prisons were constituted for. His own view was that the prison should be a place, if possible, of punishment for the crime committed; and, while avoiding anything like tyranny or cruelty on the part of the officers, the prison should not be to the prisoner a place which he could contrast favourably with his ordinary life. While providing for the education and instruction of the prisoner, he yet doubted whether they would be justified in increasing the expense of the prison by improving the character of the officials, who might more fairly be looked upon as custodians rather than as educators of the prisoners in confinement. Their education and instruction was delegated to other officers employed for that purpose; and if they had in the warder a man who was careful and trustworthy, he very much doubted whether he need be any more than that. With regard to the difference in salaries, he hardly thought the contention of the hon. Gentleman was borne out by the facts. The salaries of the Irish warders compared favourably, in his opinion, with the salaries paid in the Scotch prisons, and even with those in the English prisons. They represented, he was satisfied, the value of the labour that was given in the three countries. Of course, the authorities of the prisons must get properly efficient men, and the salary paid must fairly represent that efficiency. The salary of the warders had been, to a certain extent, raised, in order to get suitable men. If the hon. Gentlemen doubted that, he had only to look at the Estimates. The warders in

    1497
    Ireland were paid £55, rising by £5 triennially to £70; while in Scotland the warders were paid £62, rising annually by£1 to £80; and in England they were paid £70, rising by £1 to £75. Therefore, the Irish warders were not unfavourably handicapped, as against the other two parts of the Kingdom. He could assure the hon. Member that there was no one more desirous of carrying out this Act on principles of humanity, though at the same time observing proper discipline, than his right hon. Friend.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERobserved, that this question of prison discipline was a very important matter. The two things necessary in regard to it were—first, good rules, and next, good administration. Now, he wished to point out that the Home Secretary had not fulfilled the promises he had made. They were dissatisfied with a number of points which, though small in themselves, were very important in their consequences. To his mind, the most important question connected with this subject was that of administration; and although by agitation they might succeed in getting the Home Office to try to frame rules as nearly perfect as possible, everything depended on the character of the persons appointed to carry them out. The object of the Commissioners should, therefore, be to secure the services of good men in all departments; and if they were to attract to the service men who could be trusted to do what was right in practice, and when the eye of their superior officer was not upon them, the remuneration now given in many departments must be enlarged. He had attended very closely to all the debates which had taken place in the House on the present system of prison discipline, and it had always seemed to him that the only way by which proper prison administration was to be secured was by, as far as possible, subjecting the prisons to non-official inspection. This was, also, one of the most useful parts of the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), when he called attention to the necessity of letting light into prisons through the medium of Visiting Committees, for it was the only machinery by which the public outside were able to exercise any direct influence upon prison discipline. The limited powers given to these bodies
    1498
    should not, therefore, be restricted; on the contrary, the tendency to this opinion should be in the opposite direction. He remembered one suggestion brought forward before the Committee, that upon the payment of a small fee the public might be allowed to visit prisons at certain times, and see the size of the cells; and, again, one of the gravest questions that occupied them was concerning the size of the cell in which a prisoner had to be inured for a length of a time. The result of their consideration of this point was that some of the cells were thought to be unfit for the habitation of a human being. But absolutely nothing had been done to effect independent inspection at any time on the part of the outside public. He repeated, that the first object should be to frame new rules, and that the next should be to see that the good rules were administered; but, at present, the public had not guarantees for good administration, which, like all attempts to accomplish anything good, required the greatest care. The public, in his opinion, ought at some time or another to be allowed to see for themselves what was going on in these establishments. Attention had been called to the position of Catholic chaplains in the Scotch prisons, and it had been stated that some arrangement was made that they should be paid by time work, or by a kind of capitation grant. If that were the actual arrangement, it spoke very well for the conduct of the Catholic people of Scotland, because it showed that the Catholics formed a very small proportion of the prisoners. But he had met on more than one occasion with complaints of the narrow way in which Catholic priests were dealt with in the Scotch prisons; and now that Government had taken the prison administration into their own hands, it was a matter worthy of their attention to see that no class of prisoners should be without the services of ministers of religion, no matter what might be the local opinion under the circumstances. No matter what the prison officials might say or do, they could not make a man worship God according to the dictates of another man's conscience; and if they did anything to prisoners to make them amenable to religious influences, it must be by approaching them through ministers of their own persuasion. The Government must be

    1499
    aware that there was a large party in the House of Commons to whom this matter of prison discipline had for a long time been a subject of the greatest interest; and that many measures would have been brought forward by private Members, had they not hoped to succeed in pressing the Government not to let the question drop until the whole system had been placed upon a sound footing.
    MR. O'DONNELLhad listened with great pleasure to the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, when he stated that the Home Secretary had taken into his serious consideration some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell); but that had not touched the very essence and foundation of their complaint, that whatever might have been the consideration bestowed upon the point referred to, the right hon. Gentleman had not carried out his promise. He (Mr. O'Donnell) could not see that it could be very much consolation to the friends of a prisoner sentenced to twelve months' or three years' imprisonment, and who had been accustomed to wear flannels and required them for his health, to find that, notwithstanding all the consideration given by the Home Secretary to the subject, no rule had been framed to protect him from the brutality of being stripped of those garments upon which his health depended. The Secretary to the Treasury said that prisons were not places of pleasure, and that the population at large ought not to be accustomed to look upon imprisonment as an agreeable interlude in the business of life; but nobody in the House could at all favour the theory that punishments were given only for the object of exercising severity. He confessed that if the Home Secretary had given his great consideration to this matter, it was certainly singular that he should have allowed himself to be so far misled by his own reasonings as to contrive that curious gloss upon the Act of Parliament by which the plain intent of the Legislature had been totally foiled. The Legislature had decreed that the punishment of solitary confinement should not be inflicted for a period of more than 24 hours, except with the consent of certain outside authorities—namely, the Visiting Justices. But the right hon. Gentleman considered the question in this way. He knew that the Act forbade the infliction of close imprison-
    1500
    ment upon a prisoner for more than 24 hours, except by permission of this external and independent authority; he also found that in the Act close imprisonment was defined to be imprisonment in a punishment cell. So he got out of the difficulty by an evasion, equally unworthy of his office and of the responsibility in which he stood before the country. The Act forbade him to inflict more than 24 hours in a regulation punishment cell, so he got out of the difficulty by allowing the gaoler to inflict three days' punishment in the prisoner's own cell. This was cruelty; it was not punishment, it was barbarity. Therefore, the sooner the right hon. Gentleman devoted a little more consideration to the subject the better for his own influence and the better for future Acts of Parliament. The question of prison discipline ought to engage a still larger share of the attention of the House than it had during recent years. It was admitted that, so far as any reformation of the prisoner was concerned, the working of the present system had been a thorough failure, and that to have passed a certain number of years in these academies of crime justly branded a man as a bad character for the remainder of his life; it was, therefore, necessary to impress upon the Government that the visits of prisoners to these places should, besides being punitive, be also reformatory. Unless they were to provide that when a man who got into prison should never come out, it ought to be considered how far the time spent there was likely to harden him in crime; and, in many cases, where the individual was as much a victim as an offender, whether he should become a burden to the population all the days of his life?
    MR. BIGGARhad no doubt that punishments should not be inflicted except after judicial decision, and that, therefore, a Judge who gave that decision should know what was the extent of the punishment for which he passed sentence. It was thoroughly unreasonable that the Judge should think the punishment was going to be one thing, and that the party carrying the sentence into effect should inflict something of an entirely different character. But such was the case under the present system. The Judge might sentence a man to imprisonment with a certain amount of hard

    1501
    labour; and, in the manner described by the lion. Member for Meath, he might be put upon bread and water in solitary confinement, with the certainty of his either being permanently injured or meeting a premature death. It was never the intention of the House of Commons, when the Prison Act was passed, that such things as these should happen, or that the term of a month's imprisonment should become an equivalent for execution by Mr. Marwood. Another blot upon the system was that nothing was known or heard of a prisoner during the whole term of his imprisonment. If a man died from the effects of the treatment received, it was unsatisfactory that a Coroner'sjury should decide upon the circumstances of his death, even supposing they could by some means get up the facts of the case; and it was well known that the officials supported and screened one another. He, therefore, considered that, as the Home Secretary had promised to amend the prison rules, some arrangement should be made by which a prisoner should have the opportunity of complaining if he thought he had been treated in a manner not in accordance with the prison rules. With regard to the prison chaplains, it was, of course, proper that they should receive a liberal salary; but this office, in the present case, was filled by a gentleman who also received £20 to pay for a substitute during his absence, from which it was to be gathered that he gave the whole of his time to the duties of the office. The Catholic priest got £70 a-year; but he did not require any irresponsible Scripture teacher, because he performed his duties himself. Then came the Scripture reader with a salary of £140 a-year, which was a larger sum by £15 than what was given to the highest teacher in the gaol, and was more by £10 than the sum paid to the head-warder. He (Mr. Biggar) held, in the first place, that these Scripture readers were not required at all; and that, secondly, even supposing they were required, the salary was excessive. The position of a Scripture reader was that of a person thoroughly irresponsible, and was either too stupid or too dishonest to fill that of schoolmaster, or, in short, any other useful employment. He thought that hon. Members of all denominations should set their faces against this system
    1502
    of paying to these irresponsible persons salaries equal to those paid to ministers of the Established Church; for that reason, he would move that the item of £140 for salaries to these persons be struck out of the Vote.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the item of £140, for Salary of Scripture Header in Perth Prison, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not for one moment agree that the Committee would take the view expressed by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) of the position and duties of the Scripture readers, and he trusted that the Motion of the hon. Member would be rejected by the Committee.
    MR. PARNELLthought the Committee was entitled to know whether the Home Secretary persisted in the interpretation which he had placed upon Section 50 of the Prisons Act of 1877; that interpretation being entirely contrary to the intention of Parliament, and assuming an authority on the part of the Home Office which rendered the clause of no practical effect whatever. He had already explained that it continued the power to gaolers to inflict solitary confinement on bread and water diet just in the same way as before. Instead of limiting the power of these men, the Home Office had, by a device of their own, interpreted the Act to mean that solitary confinement of a prisoner in his own cell was a separate and distinct punishment from solitary confinement in a punishment cell. He wished to know whether the Home Secretary still adhered to his interpretation, and whether he had taken any steps since the matter was last discussed to submit the question for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, as to the construction to be placed on the Section of the Act of 1877, to which he referred? He also desired to know whether, if he was still of opinion that the power to inflict this punishment existed, he would bring in a short Act to carry out the obvious intention of Parliament? As regarded the question of flannels, the Home Secretary had certainly promised that care should be taken to supply flannels to those prisoners who required them. The words "shall get them" were merely a form of expression, and he would be glad to know what steps the right hon. Gen-

    1503
    tleman had taken to frame rules with regard to this matter?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the hon. Member for Meath had forgotten that the power referred to had been in existence previous to the transfer of prisons. The punishment of bread and water diet was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of prison discipline.
    MR. CALLANobserved, that the Roman Catholic priest received only £70 a-year, the Presbyterian clergyman £50 a-year; but the Scripture reader, whom he generally found to be a spirituous individual, was paid a good deal more. The teachers of religion in a prison at Perth thus only received £50 a-year; whereas the Scripture reader, the inferior minister, was paid a salary of £140 a-year, which salary it seemed had originally been fixed at £110 a-year, and had risen to its present maximum of £140. Thus the Scripture reader was paid exactly double what the Roman Catholic priest received. He could not understand another item; a warder received a salary for acting in the capacity of a "precentor," whatever that might be. There was also a teacher of music to the female convicts. He should like some explanation as to the allowance to a warder for teaching music to female convicts; he thought an explanation was also desirable with regard to the difference between the salaries to the Roman Catholic priest and the Protestant clergyman.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it had been proposed to omit an item from the Vote under discussion. He must point out that until the Committee disposed of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cavan, no other item could be discussed.
    MR. CALLANstated that he would confine his observations to the question of the Scripture reader, and would reserve the other questions till later.
    MR. BIGGARwished to say a few words with regard to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury. In the first place, with regard to readers of what they called "the Scriptures," in his opinion, a teacher of religion should be an authorized person—that was, authorized by some religious community; and he was most distinctly of opinion that that House should not permit unauthorized
    1504
    persons to undertake the expounding of religion to persons under their control. He knew very well that Roman Catholics would not submit to such a thing, and he did not think that a member of the Established Church of Scotland would submit to have the doctrines of his Church expounded to him by any such irresponsible person as a Scripture reader. He knew one case of a Scripture reader who was formerly a National School teacher in Belfast, and was dismissed from his office for gross fraud; yet that person had been appointed a Scripture reader, and received money in that capacity. While employed as a teacher he issued what purported to be a summons from the Magistrates' Court in respect of a person's child, and levied a fine of a shilling for the summons. The summons was a forgery, and he had no right to charge anything for it. Having thus lost his situation as a National School teacher, that person turned his attention to Scripture reading, and had made a very good living out of it ever since. It seemed to him that those irresponsible people were very much better paid than properly qualified ministers of religion. The case of another Scripture reader in the North of Ireland was known to him. His character was described by a clergyman of the Church of Ireland in terms of unqualified disapproval. Under these circumstances, he must object to irresponsible people of this sort being employed, and for that reason he moved the reduction of the Vote.
    MR. O'DONNELLthought that his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) must have formed his opinion of Scripture readers entirely from those few persons engaged in proselytizing in the North of Ireland. He was sure that there was no more respectable and no more useful body of assistants in the Protestant and Presbyterian Churches than the Scripture readers attached to those communities. The hon. Member for Cavan, it seemed to him, had been led to do injustice to the general body of Scripture readers from his experience of a certain number of persons called the Irish Church Missionaries. Forming his opinion from them, he had been led to generalize too much. The Scripture readers in prisons had a very arduous task to perform, and rendered good assistance to the minis-

    1505
    ters in their duties. Their employment thus tended to reduce the expenditure of religious ministrations in prisons, for he believed an expenditure in that direction was of great benefit in the reformation of prisoners.
    MR. BIGGARwas indisposed in general to differ from his lion. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell); but on this occasion he could not agree with him. It was true he had no general experience of Scripture readers; but in the part of Ireland to which he belonged, that class of persons were in the habit of levying black-mail upon persons like old ladies who did not know the value of money. The payment to the Scripture readers was unfair, having regard to the salaries paid to the other officials in prisons. In the first place, he did think that it was the duty of the Committee to set its face against the employment of irresponsible teachers of religion. He had no objection to the payment of the Presbyterian chaplain, for he was responsible to the Church to which he belonged; but a Scripture reader was responsible to no one. Such a person might teach doctrines which were perfectly false so far as any Church was concerned, and he was not subject to the supervision of anyone at all. He might be a person of the most degraded character; and, for all these reasons, he felt himself called upon to divide upon this Vote. The Presbyterian Scripture reader at Perth must have gone on for some considerable time, for his salary had risen from £100 to £140 a-year, and, no doubt, the present Government wore not responsible for his appointment. They found him in existence, and they did not raise any objection; but he thought then was the proper time for the Government to say that the whole of the duties of religious supervision to the Presbyterians in Perth Gaol should be properly carried out by a Presbyterian chaplain who was thoroughly competent, and who was responsible to the authorities of his own Church.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was unwilling to differ from his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); but he thought on this occasion he was straining his point too far. His experience of Scripture readers was derived from persons in Connemara, who had rendered themselves obnoxious by
    1506
    trying to convert persons from the Roman Catholic faith to the Protestant faith. But the Scripture reader at Perth did not undertake proselytism. The functions of Scripture readers in Scotch gaols were simply to read the Scriptures to those prisoners who wished to hear them read. The hon. Member for Cavan was going somewhat contrary to his principle, that persons of a particular religious persuasion were entitled to the ministrations of their own creed. There were persons in Scotland who attached much greater importance than others to the reading of the Scriptures. It was, therefore, quite right that they should be allowed to carry out their views if they thought proper. The objection of the hon. Member for Cavan with regard to the disparity between the salaries paid was, however, both fair and just. The Scripture reader got a salary of £140 a-year, while the Roman Catholic chaplain was only paid £70 a-year. If the Government would undertake to apportion the salaries of the ministers—of the different classes of ministers—in these prisons according to the number of prisoners of each religious denomination, the object of the hon. Member for Cavan would be obtained, and it would not be necessary to go to a Division. At present, it had been explained that the whole question of the salaries of the chaplains was in an unsettled state. The question of Scripture readers would be gone into; and he thought, as a sort of principle, that the members of every creed were entitled to have religious ministrations according to their own wishes. It seemed to him that they could make this compromise with the Government—that the Motion should be withdrawn on the assurance of the Government that they would consider the question of apportioning the salaries of the different chaplains and ministers of the various denominations.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who had just sat down, had informed them that he seldom disagreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); but he thought the hon. Member for Cavan was wrong on that occasion, and would recommend him to withdraw his Amendment, and allow the item to pass. He (Mr. A. M'Arthur) did not often agree with the hon. Member for Cavan; but on this occasion he

    1507
    was disposed to do so. He begged, however, to say that he had not the slightest sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member respecting Scripture readers. On the contrary, he believed that they were generally very good, excellent, and useful men; he had, therefore, no objection to them on the grounds mentioned by the hon. Member. But he believed there was a disposition manifested by certain hon. Members of the House to unnecessarily increase the number of chaplains and paid officials; and, with regard to the present case, he certainly thought that a Presbyterian chaplain, a Church of England clergyman, and a Roman Catholic priest, if they discharged their duties properly, should be quite sufficient to give religious instruction to the prisoners in one gaol. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) had stated, a few evening ago, when advocating an increase of Roman Catholic chaplains, that he had on one occasion voted in favour of a Presbyterian chaplain for a gaol in which there were only seven Presbyterian prisoners. Now, he (Mr. A. M'Arthur) could not help regarding that as altogether wrong, and a downright misappropriation of public money. In out-of-the-way places, where there were not ministers of all denominations, there might be some excuse for appointments of the kind; but in localities where there were numerous clergymen and ministers, and comparatively few prisoners, he thought it would not be unreasonable to expect that such ministers should have sufficient Christian zeal and charity to induce them to attend to the religious instruction of prisoners belonging to the Church with which they were connected without any pecuniary reward. He also believed that the adoption of such a policy would have a much better effect upon prisoners and convicts themselves; for when they felt that men were giving them religious instruction and advice in a professional way, and merely because they were paid for doing the work, the effect upon the minds of prisoners was not likely to be so salutary and beneficial as if they felt that ministers belonging to their own Church were, from a sense of duty and out of pure love to them, endeavouring to promote their best interests by giving them religious instruction gratuitously. Such instruction was highly valuable
    1508
    and necessary; but he again stated that there appeared to be a desire on the part of certain hon. Members to unnecessarily increase the number of chaplains and paid officials. He protested against that as a waste of public money, and he thought hon. Members on both sides of the House should give the subject their careful consideration and attention.
    MR. SULLIVANdid not think that the economical mind of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M Arthur) should be vexed by the expenditure under this Vote. The objection raised to the Vote could not be supported on the broad ground of principle, because the doctrine which would have to be enunciated was that the ministers of religion should have to live upon air. Even Scripture readers and ministers of religion had to pay their butchers and bakers. And if the Government did not pay the ministers of religion, who was to do so? Some one must pay them. The moment the Government put themselves into a position of authority, either with regard to paupers or prisoners, they were bound to pay for their support, their medical treatment, and their religious wants. Upon what doctrine could the hon. Member for Leicester support his argument that the ministers of religion were not to be paid? He was surprised, on this occasion, to find a conjunction of Leicester and Cavan in the objection to this Vote. It seemed to him that if a Presbyterian required the services of a Scripture reader he was entitled to have them. He took the broad view that if a man were put into prison, where reformation and amendment, rather than torture and vengeance, were to be the guiding principles, the influences of religion should be brought to bear upon that man even more strongly than when he was out-of-doors. The more complete and full the influences of religion upon a man were, so would his amendment be the stronger and more sincere.
    MR. BIGGARobserved, that the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) seemed to think that he was attacking religion. He begged to say that that was not the case; he thought it was very desirable that prisoners should have religious teaching, but he thought that all religious teaching should be given by authorized ministers of religion. He did not believe in irresponsible teachers,

    1509
    and it was for that reason he should take a Division upon the Vote.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 4; Noes 152: Majority 148.—(Div. List, No. 112.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CALLAN, observing that the sum of £200 was charged as salaries for "female Scripture readers," asked for a definition of the term, and also for information with regard to the item for a teacher of music to the female convicts.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould hardly conceive that any explanation of the term "female Scripture reader" could be necessary. With regard to the teacher of music, the object of employing that person was to enable the prisoners to sing in chapel.
    MR. PARNELLexplained that, although he had spoken against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), he had voted for it, because the Government had not accepted what he (Mr. Parnell) considered to be a fair compromise, when he suggested that the salaries of the persons in question should be equalized all round.
    MR. BIGGARwas not disposed to contest one of the items of the Vote. He was of opinion that a woman was quite as competent as a man for the purposes of religious instruction; but it seemed that the sum charged for salary to these female readers—namely, £100 each, was most extravagant; and as he thought that the services of one teacher only wore sufficient, he begged leave to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of £100, the amount of the salary of the teacher whoso services he considered to be in excess of the requirements of the prison.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Item of £200 for the Salaries of Female Scripture Readers in Perth Prison be reduced by £100."—(Mr Biggar.)
    MR. SULLIVANhoped the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would allow the Vote to pass, and in recommending that, he took the opportunity of expressing the high respect which he entertained for his motives; but he could not help thinking that it was through a misconception that Irish
    1510
    Representatives spoke upon questions like the present. He did not believe that the people of Ireland wanted any information as to the duties of female Scripture readers, whom they knew to be persons ministering to the spiritual wants and necessities of immoral females; and if the prisoners really had the benefit of the services of such functionaries, he could only say that he should be very sorry for the office to be done away with. He repeated his belief in the excellency of the motives of his hon. Friend, but appealed to him not to delay the passing of the Vote by a proposal that would be greatly misconceived out-of-doors.
    MR. BIGGAR, after the appeal of his hon. and learned Friend, was not disposed to take a Division.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £65,521, 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, of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including certain Allowances under the Act 15 and 16 Vic. c. 83."
    MR. PARNELLthought the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would recollect that the bringing on of these Irish Votes upon that occasion was in violation of a promise given by him shortly before the Whitsuntide Recess. The promise was given in reply to a Question as to the course of Business, made at the commencement of the Sitting, when the hon. Baronet stated that no Irish Votes should be brought on until the second Estimate night after Whitsuntide. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON dissented.] The Secretary to the Treasury shook his head; but that was the distinct recollection of himself, and of many Irish Members; and, moreover, he noticed that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who took a very strong interest in many of the Irish Votes, was not present. He thought the practice was a most vicious one, to put off the Votes from time to time, in order to suit the convenience of Members; but that was an entirely different thing to putting off the Votes,

    1511
    and bringing them forward before the time agreed upon. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would state how many of the Irish Votes he proposed to take that evening; because many Irish Members, in consequence of what he contended was the promise of the hon. Baronet not to bring on the Votes until the second Estimate night, were not prepared to discuss them to the extent which they considered to be necessary. He, therefore, begged to move that the Chairman do now report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdistinctly denied that he had given the promise referred to by the hon. Member, to defer the consideration of the Irish Votes until the second Estimate night after the Whitsuntide Recess. It would be in the recollection of the Committee, who, he believed, would bear him out, that he had never given any such promise. What he had said to the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), who had, on more than one occasion, asked him to postpone certain Votes in which he took a special interest, was that he would not bring on those Votes until Irish Members were present in sufficient number to discuss them. But he had told the hon. Member for Galway, on that occasion, that he would take the Law Votes for Ireland on the night before the House rose for the Recess, or as soon as possible thereafter. Although he had given no pledge, if hon. Members had been misled by anything he had said, and were willing to go on with the other Classes down upon the Paper, he had no wish to force the Irish Law Votes upon their attention.
    MR. CALLANasked if the promise to postpone the Votes referred to by the hon. Baronet was made in the House or in the course of private conversation? [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: In the course of private conversation.] Were the Committee to be told that Irish Members were to be bound by private conversations? The hon. Member for Galway was not the Leader of the Party to which he (Mr. Callan) had the honour to belong. The hon. Baronet, in his reply, had stated something to this
    1512
    effect, that—"As soon as he had reason to know that Irish Members were present in sufficient numbers, he would endeavour to bring on the Votes in which they were interested." The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was under the same impression as himself (Mr. Callan), that a pledge was given, or implied, that the Irish Votes should not be taken on the first night of the Estimates. He considered it to be absolutely essential that the Vote should be postponed, inasmuch as it was composed of several large items, of which no explanation whatever was afforded in the Estimates for the information of the Committee.
    SIR HENEY SELWIN-IBBETSON, with the permission of the Committee, would recall what had really taken place with reference to the Irish Votes. Some hon. Members for Ireland raised the question as to whether the Irish Votes should not be postponed a second time—to such time as they could be fairly discussed? And, in answer to that, he had made use of the words just read by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan). He had also said that he would take care, as soon as hon. Members could attend, to bring on the Votes for the Queen's College and University in Ireland. Such was the purport of his speech just before the House broke up for the Recess. As he had already stated, he had no wish to force the Vote upon the Committee that evening upon a mere misunderstanding; but he trusted the Committee would allow the other Votes to be taken.
    MR. CALLANsaid, they might take Votes 24, 27, 28, and 29, as to which no question arose.
    MR. PARNELLthought they must except Vote 28, as to which there would be some discussion. These Law charges, also, were a most important Vote, and would take a long time. But the others might be allowed to pass, as the hon. Baronet wished it, and that would meet the convenience of everybody. Of course, when he referred to an understanding, he knew nothing of a private conversation with the hon. Member for Galway.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, not a single item in these Law charges had been altered or objected to for many years; but if the hon. Members wished to raise a discussion the Vote could be

    1513
    postponed, only he did not see what possible questions could be urged.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    (7.) £28,888, to complete the sum for the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, &c. Ireland.
    (8.) £8,387, to complete the sum for Probate, &c. Registries, Ireland.
    (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £7,574, 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 the incidental Expenses of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland."
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, there was a strong objection to this Vote.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, really hon. Members must make up their minds as to what they thought. Hon. Members proposed that they should take Votes 24, 27, 28, and 29, and since then Vote 28 had been objected to. Now, here was another objection. It seemed, if they were to proceed at all, that they were only to proceed at the suggestion of hon. Members opposite. He did not wish to be misrepresented. He denied having ever said any such thing; but if he had been represented as saying that he would not take certain Votes till the second day after Whitsuntide, then he would not proceed with the opposed Votes. But there were certain Votes to which they had been told there was no objection, and those he must ask the Committee to pass.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the Votes he mentioned were 24, 27, 28, and 29, and since then an objection had been taken to 28. He did not name 25, for it was one to which he entertained the strongest objection.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Vote now under discussion was No. 28. Did anybody object to that?
    MR. CALLANreplied that he did not.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, this Vote was included amongst those suggested by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan); but the Committee would recollect that he (Mr. Parnell) immediately expressed his objection to it.
    MR. NEWDEGATEremarked, that he began to question who was in charge of the Estimates. Of course, if it was a question of postponing one or two Votes in pursuance of some pledge, they expected that courtesy from Her Majesty's Government; but here was now a list of some seven Votes, with no reason for the postponement of any of them; and he would suggest to Her Majesty's Government, while they were thus considering the views of the few lion. Gentlemen who arrogated to themselves the representation of Ireland that the majority of the House had a right to expect from them the maintenance of such a continuity of Business as would enable Members generally to form some idea of what Business there was to be transacted.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Newdegate) desired to have Business transacted, he would be less severe in his tones to the Treasury Bench, especially when it manifested the courteous and conciliatory disposition which it had been shown that night. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh at that statement, and they no doubt desired scenes, which he and his hon. Friends desired to avoid. But the House would find out that the way to facilitate Business was to show the courteous spirit shown by the Secretary to the Treasury. The impression made by his conduct, and the generous spirit in which he had taken care, and more than care, that what he was represented to have said was carried out, would certainly tend to facilitate Business. The hon. Gentleman, if he desired that also, would do well to be less stern.
    MR. NEWDEGATEreplied, that a minority could not be allowed to command. He had seen the minority treated with very great forbearance; but there were limits to that forbearance, and if those limits were transgressed it became impossible for the great body of the House to do its duty.
    MR. RYLANDSwas quite prepared to support the Secretary to the Treasury in his impression of what he had said; but the fact remained that some hon. Gentlemen from Ireland were under a different impression. Accordingly, in the fairest way, the hon. Gentleman offered not to take the Votes at all. His own impression was that that would have been the best course; for then they

    1515
    would have been saved something which looked like haggling—one hon. Gentleman objecting to one Vote and one to another. He would suggest to the Government that they should not proceed further with the Irish Votes that night, as it was quite clear there had been a misunderstanding. He would move that they should now report Progress, and take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Committee would adhere to the original arrangement and take these four Votes before it passed to anything else, as he hoped to ask them to take certain other Votes with the view of advancing the Business of Supply.
    MR. BIGGARthought the hon. Baronet had exercised a wise discretion in entering into a compromise with certain Members on that side of the House, for there was plenty of opportunity to raise several questions on the Votes just agreed to, and he was disposed to have done so but for the compromise suggested. As to the Bankruptcy Vote, the Attorney General for Ireland must know that the Members for Belfast had a very decided opinion in favour of a Local Bankruptcy Bill, and he was sure they would be disappointed if this Vote should be passed in their absence. He knew, of course, that the present Bill could not pass this Session; but still the hon. Gentlemen who were not now present might feel a satisfaction in being able to speak on the subject.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the matter would be discussed on its merits, and he felt sure neither of those hon. Members would wish the Vote postponed on their account.
    MR. ERRINGTONthought nothing could be fairer than the conduct of the Secretary to the Treasury; but certainly his own impression was shared by many other hon. Members, that no Irish Votes were to be taken that night. He thought that the best thing to be done now was to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands).
    MR. J. LOWTHERexplained, that the offer of the Secretary to the Trea-
    1516
    sury was to withdraw all Irish Votes except those which were practically unopposed. As to this particular Vote, he did not share the misgivings of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that certain hon. Gentlemen, not usually very prominent in opposing Votes, would take exception to this one; and as no hon. Member present took any exception to it, he hoped it would be allowed to pass.
    MR. CALLANhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) would withdraw his opposition to this Vote. The Judges were very efficient officers, and he thought of all the Votes this was one to which the fewest objections applied.
    MR. BIGGARknew that the hon. Members for Belfast did desire a Local Bill; and as there was not the least chance of the Bankruptcy Bill becoming law this Session, he did think that those two hon. Gentlemen would be very pleased to have an opportunity of speaking on this subject.
    MR. RAMSAYregretted the waste of time, the more that it had arisen from the extreme courtesy of the hon. Gentleman, and his desire to prevent complaints. He thought they might pass this Vote; because, though they had had half-an-hour's discussion, no one had anything to say against the Vote itself.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the Vote was one to which no reasonable objection could be made; and he therefore hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and the Vote allowed to pass.
    MR. RYLANDSasked for leave to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, there was a question of considerable importance involved in this Vote—the question of Local Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland. He was very anxious to discuss it; but he would give way in response to the appeals of his hon. Friends, and so was, practically, giving up his chance of discussing this matter in that Session; for though the Attorney General had a Bill on the Paper, he never got a day for his measures, so that it was not very likely to come on.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (10.) £1,195, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Court Registry, Ireland.

    CLASS VI.—SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES, AND GRATUITIES FOR CHARITABLE AND OTHER PURPOSES.
    (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £289,772, 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 Superannuation and Retired Allowances to Persons formerly employed in the Public Service, and for Compassionate or other Special Allowances and Gratuities awarded by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."
    MR. WHITWELLhoped the Secretary to the Treasury would not take so important a Vote at that hour, and moved to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Whitwell.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Committee would not agree to the Motion. Although the Vote was an important one, it was never discussed, for it was only carrying out the pledges given by the Government to its Civil servants, and he could not conceive the hon. Member could wish that to be diminished or altered.
    MR. MONKsaid, the grounds of the Motion were not quite understood. They had been steadily progressing through Supply for the last seven hours, and now one of the most important measures of the Session was about to be brought into Committee—the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. His hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) seemed to think, because that was a Money Bill, that it could be taken at any hour. He might, technically, be right; but he certainly could not think that was the proper way to discuss it. He was sure it would facilitate Business if they were now allowed to report Progress, and to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.
    MR. WHITWELLthought that this subject could not be properly discussed at that hour. It was not right to take a Vote of £500,000 on a subject of this kind at that time; by so doing, the Committee pledged itself to pay large amounts of superannuation to persons who would receive it for the first time. It was time
    1518
    that the Committee should take into its serious consideration how far they should advance in the direction in which they were now going in this matter of superannuation. Although they might not be able to obtain any reduction in the Vote, yet he thought public attention should be drawn to this question of superannuation and allowances; and, as that could not be done at 12 o'clock at night, he should object to their proceeding further at that time.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 120: Majority 90.—(Div. List, No. 113.)
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that as he now observed the Leader of the House in his place, he would appeal to him not to go any further at that hour. They had been sitting in Committee of Supply for many hours—ever since 5 o'clock. If the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill were to be taken at all to-night, it could not be taken later than the present time.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be taken that night. He was sorry they had not made so much progress in Committee as they might have done. However, after taking that one Vote, he proposed to report Progress, and to go on with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 150.]
(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 150.]

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 20th May.]
    PART I.—Customs.
    Clauses 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

    PART II.—Taxes.
    Clause 15 (Grant of duties of income tax.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. COURTNEYobserved, that he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to say recently, in answer to a question from an hon. Member, that any person who occupied agricultural land, and did not make a profit, could escape altogether payment of Income Tax. He could not see how that was reconcilable with this clause of the Bill, which was a repetition of the clause always inserted in the Income Tax Bills ever since the imposition of the tax. He wished to know whether the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman was reconcilable with the clause? He should also like to be informed whether, if, as he had said, a farmer who did not make profit would escape being assessed for Income Tax altogether, he would, on the other hand, if he made additional profit, be bound to pay Income Tax upon more than the amount of half his rent? Could he, in such a case, be charged in addition to that rent? He should have thought that the principle of assessment was that the assessment of half the rent was to cover good and bad years alike, and was to be paid in all cases. If a farmer were not to be taken at his assessment of half his rent in England, and one-third in Scotland, when he made no profit, he thought some explanation should be given to the Committee of what happened when he made a large profit.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that the answer he had given on the former occasion was made by him from instructions he received. That answer he thought to be accurate. But if the hon. Member would allow him to consider the operation of this particular clause of the Bill, he should be happy to give him his opinion. As at present advised, he thought that his former answer was accurate—that if a farmer did not make any profit out of his farm he would, then, escape the payment of Income Tax. Still, it might be that the answer was not accurate; and he should like his hon. Friend to give him a short time to consider it, in connection with this Bill, before he pledged himself to the accuracy of the answer. If his hon. Friend would repeat the question, either in the course of that evening, or at some other time, after he had considered the matter, he should be happy to give him his opinion with regard to it.
    MR. RYLANDSconsidered that the reply of the hon. and learned Attorney General had placed the Committee in a most extraordinary position. The mode of assessment in the case of farmers for every 20 s. of the annual value of the occupation of the land implied that a farmer, however large his profit might be, should not be charged on any larger sum than that determined by the amount of his rent; and, on the other hand, if he made a loss, that he should not be charged less than the sum provided for by the Act; and, in this way, he had always understood the amount chargeable upon farmers to be fixed and permanent, inasmuch as, unlike the charge upon ordinary trade profits, it did not fluctuate. But in what position had the Committee been placed? The Government, through their mouthpiece, the most learned authority in the House, had told the Committee that the clause was not understood, and that with regard to its meaning no answer could then be given. In answer to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), the Attorney General had asked that the Committee would allow this matter to go forward, and had promised at some future time, perhaps in answer to a Question put upon the Paper, to give the result of his mature judgment upon the point raised by the hon. Member. But, by that time, he (Mr. Rylands) wished to point out that the Bill would be passed and the clause enacted. If it was to be understood that during periods the most flourishing for agriculture, when farmers might make incomes considerably over the amount represented by half their rental, they were not to pay any more than the amount chargeable by this mode of assessment, the adoption of such a principle was, in his opinion, grossly unfair to other classes of the Income Tax paying community. Unless the hon. and learned Gentleman could tell the Committee what was the meaning of the clause, he hoped the hon. Member for Liskeard would move to report Progress, in order that the Committee might not be placed in the position of passing a clause of the meaning of which they knew nothing.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDsaid, as far as he remembered, the terms of the present Bill were precisely the same as those of the Acts hitherto in force; and he wished to point out that the difficulty

    1521
    raised by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had nothing to do with the question whether the Committee should proceed to pass the clause then; under consideration in the usual way. The assessment under Schedule B was very much in the same position as that under Schedule D, by which a man assessed at more than his profits had a right to show, on appeal, that he had been over assessed. The Attorney General had expressed his opinion that a farmer had this right of appeal, and that the question was determinable by the Courts of Law. He (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) trusted that the clause would not meet with opposition, as all previous enactments had been in the same form as that now presented to the Committee.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYhad always understood that the Schedule referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) was agreed to as a compromise in view of the exceeding difficulty of ascertaining the profits of a farmer in the same way as those of a mechanic. But the Attorney General had put the Committee into confusion, by saying that he did not understand the meaning of the clause; surely, therefore, it would be better to report Progress, in order to give the Government and the Attorney General time to consider what it really meant. He had no objection to the clause as previously understood; but if a new interpretation was to be put upon it, it should be made perfectly clear.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)thought that as the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had only called attention to the question as he was on the point of leaving the House, he might have been excused from expressing an opinion without some further consideration. But he begged to protest against the statement of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Thomson Hankey), that he had put the Committee in any difficulty with regard to this question; for if there existed any doubt as to the proper construction of the clause, it certainly was not he who had caused it. The question of the liability of farmers, under the circumstances indicated, would have to be considered by the Courts of Law; and all that was required of him, and all that could be expected of him, was to express an opinion as to what construction would
    1522
    be placed upon the clause by those Courts. The whole question turned upon the meaning of the words "annual value of the occupation." Some hon. Members were of opinion that the annual value of the occupation of land was the amount of the rent; but to that conclusion he could not assent, because if he found sufficient evidence that the rent was not the annual value of the land, but that, on the contrary, the tenant had been making nothing by it for a considerable period, he should conclude that the rent was very much higher than the value of the occupation of the land, and that the tenant who made nothing out of it, or who made less than the rent, would not be liable to pay the tax. That view might not be a correct one, and the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) might be able to satisfy him that it was not. What he had stated, in answer to the Question put, not the other day but some time ago, was that—"If a tenant did not make any profit out of his farm he could escape payment of the Income Tax," and to that opinion he still adhered.
    MR. RAMSAYthought, whatever might be the result of the discussion, that the question involved, and the opinion given by the hon. and learned Attorney General, were of very great importance. Whatever might have been the law, the practice had always been to charge farmers in respect of the rent paid for the occupation of the land, and from that practice he had never known of any case of appeal. Now, if it were the intention of the Government, as he understood from the observations of the Attorney General, that farmers should, in future, have the right of appeal in cases where it was found that no profit had accrued from the land in their occupation, that right ought to be made so clear as not to admit of doubt. Upon these grounds, therefore, and for the purpose of enabling the Government to make such change in the terms of the clause as would provide that farmers either should or should not have the right of appeal against an assessment in respect of the rent which they paid, he thought that the Government should agree to report Progress. No doubt, the hon. and learned Attorney General was quite correct in his view of the law; but it was of great consequence that the question should be definitely

    1523
    settled. He thought that those acquainted with the operation of the law in this country must be aware whether or not there had been any cases of appeal with regard to assessment on rental. As the case now stood, farmers had never within his knowledge been recognized by assessors of Income Tax as having any such right, and for that reason the law ought to be placed beyond all doubt.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the Government, and not the Attorney General, were held responsible in this matter. So far from being liable to blame, the Attorney General was entitled to the thanks of the Committee for pointing out the obscurity which existed in the wording of the clause, which certainly could not be interpreted by the Committee if it could not be interpreted by either the Government or the hon. and learned Gentleman. Without, on that occasion, attempting to express any opinion as to what ought to be the mode of assessing farmers for Income Tax—whether they should be treated in the same manner as ordinary traders, or be charged on half the rental of their land—the contention raised was simply that the law should be made clear, definite, and precise, so that it might not only be interpreted by the Attorney General or by the farmer in a certain way, but be understood by any ordinary man of business. When, therefore, the Attorney General rose in his place to say that he could not interpret this clause, and expressed the opinion that it would lead to litigation, he supplied an argument absolutely without answer in favour of reporting Progress, so as to give Her Majesty's Government the opportunity of bringing up a clause clear and intelligible, and which would embody their views upon the subject. The Committee ought to know—and the great agricultural interest ought to know—whether it was, or was not, the intention of the Government that the old rule should be rigidly kept—that farmers should be treated exceptionally, and that, unlike other traders, they should not pay Income Tax on their profits, but pay on a fixed proportion of their rents. If that was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, let it be so stated; and if, on the other hand, the Government intended to change the system which had been in operation ever since the Income Tax had been imposed, and to treat
    1524
    farmers in future in the same way as other traders were treated; if, when a farmer should go to the Commissioners and say—"I have made no profit; you must not charge me with any Income Tax," the Commissioners were to have power to say—"You have made profits, and we shall charge you upon an amount equal to the rent, or more than the rent," the Government should state that also clearly and explicitly, and embody the principle in the Bill in such a manner as would render misunderstanding impossible. The Attorney General, he trusted, would not suppose that the smallest blame was intended to be cast upon him; on the contrary, thanks were due for the manner in which he had come forward and frankly stated that he could not interpret the clause in the Bill introduced by the Government of which he was a Member. Under those circumstances, he (Mr. Fawcett) thought that no other course was open to the Committee but to further consider the matter; and, with that object in view, he begged to move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Income Tax was assessed by the Legislature on land in occupation in respect of the rent at the rate of half the rent, for the reason that land was an instrument, and it was thought unfair to tax an instrument of trade twice over—that was to say, first in respect of its possession, and again in respect of its occupation. It was admitted that the tenant farmer derived additional profit from the employment of capital, and it was thought that the capital ought to be assessed; but, inasmuch as the land already paid under Schedule A, and the capital belonged partly to the landlord and partly to the tenant, a compromise was effected, and the tenant was assessed at half the amount of the rent. Assuming that the Government intended to abide by the principle of assessment, which he had endeavoured to describe—and he should be surprised to learn that they proposed to place any additional burden upon landed property and the agricultural interest—he wished to ask, whether it was their intention to give the tenant

    1525
    farmer the right of appeal against his assessment, and the right to prove, if he could, that he had made no profit?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I cannot help thinking there is some confusion in the minds of the Committee with regard to this clause. It is said that its meaning is not understood by the Government; but I do not think that is a fair description of the clause as it stands in the Bill. The clause is one for fixing for the current year the rate of the Income Tax which it is proposed to continue, and that rate is fixed in the terms which have been employed for a great number of years, very nearly in the same words as those used in 1842, when the tax was originnally imposed. All that it does is to provide—
    "That there shall he charged, collected, and paid for the year commencing on the Sixth day of April One thousand eight hundred and seventy-nine, in respect of all property, profits, and gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter thirty-four, the following duties of income tax; (that is to say,)
    "For every twenty shillings of the annual value or amount of property, profits, and gains chargeable under Schedules (A.), (C), (D.), or (E.) of the said Act, the duty of fivepence:
    "And for every twenty shillings of the annual value of the occupation of lands, tenements, hereditaments, and heritages chargeable under Schedule (B.) of the said Act,—
    "In England, the duty of twopence halfpenny."
    These words are intended to have, and, no doubt, they must have, the effect of continuing for the year the charge at these rates upon the descriptions of property named. Clause 16 provides that all provisions which were in force on the 5th of April last shall have full force and effect for another year from that time. There is no intention whatever by this Bill to make any change in the manner of raising the Income Tax upon Schedule B, or upon any other Schedule; and I cannot, therefore, understand why this Bill should be charged with anything like obscurity. Again, the question is raised as to what might be the effect of an appeal which might be made by an occupier of land, under Schedule B, against the assessment upon the principle on which he has always been assessed? But that is a question of a rather speculative character; and I am not aware that any such
    1526
    case has arisen, or that any such appeal has been made; but if such a case should arise, no doubt, the appeal would be properly heard and determined according to the law which has existed since the year 1842. The Government have no intention whatever to put any construction upon the law other than that which has been placed upon it since the time when the tax was originally enforced; and, therefore, no charge of any kind will be placed upon the tenant farmer, under Schedule B, beyond such as has been enforced already. But the question may be raised upon the point now suggested, which, perhaps, never occurred before—that is to say, whether it might not be open to a tenant farmer, who was charged according to the practice hitherto prevailing, to raise the question whether he was rightly charged, and, perhaps, appeal, and say that he ought to be charged less because he had made no profit. But, in that case, either he would be able to support his appeal or he would not; if he could not, nothing need be said; but if he could, he would get the advantage of his appeal, and, of course, the Exchequer would be losers in that proportion. If we thought there was any probability of appeals being made which would entail loss upon the Exchequer, and if we thought that it was not the wish of Parliament that such loss should be entailed, it would, of course, be open to us to propose a clause to meet the imaginary case which I say has not arisen. We are quite prepared to allow the law, as far as the collection of taxes is concerned, to stand upon its present footing; nobody is damnified, and no occupier of land is in any way injured thereby, because the law will continue to be the same as it has always been, and the Government do not apprehend that they will suffer any loss. For these reasons, I think there is no case whatever, either for our adjourning or, for putting off the progress of the Bill. All we are asking the Committee to do now is that which has been done for 37 years—namely, to continue the Income Tax from year to year upon its original footing.
    MR. COURTNEYobserved, that the Attorney General gave an answer to the Question put to him on the former occasion without the least hesitation or doubt. He said, most certainly, that if a farmer,

    1527
    like any other trader or professional man, did not, in the exercise of his occupation, realize a certain amount, described as the hypothetical profit which he had made, he could obtain a reduction of his assessment. He listened to that statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman with perfect astonishment. Looking now to the clause, he believed that answer to be an entirely erroneous interpretation of it. But the statement having been made by him in that House, it would be repeated in all parts of the Kingdom; and could they believe that some farmers in the country would not raise the question, and have the Attorney General for their authority? Could it be doubted that farmers would claim to be assessed in the way in which the Attorney General said they could be? He thought that this matter ought to be decided before they proceeded further; for until that year there had never been any doubt raised upon the subject, although farmers had realized handsome profits, and sometimes made no profits at all. The statement of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, he thought, was accurate, that the assessment of the farmers in England on half their rent, and in Scotland on one-third, was taken as a compromise on the matter, and was intended to be paid in good and bad years alike. The Attorney General had now informed them that a farmer could take that assessment if he made profit, but could reject it if it were to his disadvantage. The question was, was it right that they should only have Income Tax from farmers upon the assessment of half their rental in good years, and allow them to make a claim for no assessment at all when they had realized no profits? If that were the case, before they went further the matter ought to be made perfectly clear. If the Attorney General thought fit to re-consider his statement, let him do so. The Attorney General was a Member of the Government, and represented the Government; and if he told the House that a farmer could claim to be assessed at a lower rate, his statement would operate considerably in reducing the amount of Income Tax paid into the Treasury. It seemed to him either that the statement of the Attorney General should be retracted, or this clause should be made clearer.
    MR. SAMPSON LLOYDdid not wish to trouble the Committee again; but he
    1528
    must express his opinion that the Committee was proceeding in a wrong direction. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) asked the Committee to determine a question which might arise out of the Bill, but which its language could not determine. The compromise which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had alluded to was made for the purpose of allowing a man to be assessed, in the first instance, at half his rent, whether he had made any profits or not. But the question as to whether he should obtain a reduction of that, if he did not make profits, belonged entirely to another branch of the law. The objection raised was entirely foreign to this Bill, which did not deal at all with the question of profit, but only provided that a farmer should be assessed, in the first instance, upon half his rent.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he, for one, was quite satisfied to abide by his opinion as to the clause, which for 36 years had been in operation in every Bill which had been passed. A view had been expressed by the hon. and learned Attorney General that he did not think the Committee had anything to do with it. They might pass this clause, and yet agree with the Attorney General. It was clearly the intention of the Act that a farmer should pay upon his assessment of half his rent. That was a compromise which had been well understood, and had lasted from 30 to 35 years, and he did not think there was any chance of an appeal arising on it.
    COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE, having been one of the Commissioners for Income Tax for many years, could state that it had sometimes happened that occupiers of land had appealed, upon the ground that they had not made any profits. In some cases they had admitted their objection, and in others not. They had had three or four applications from tenant farmers, showing clearly that they had not made any profits on the land, and that they had not even made their rental. In those cases relief had been given. He might say that this had happened not only recently, but seven years ago.
    MR. RAMSAYthought that a very important question arose from the fact that the hon. and learned Gentleman

    1529
    the Attorney General had stated his opinion that the farmers had a right to appeal; he did not only give it as his own opinion, but stated that he had consulted with the heads of the Revenue Department who had charge of the administration of the Income Tax in the country. The hon. Member who had last addressed the Committee had told them that the Income Tax Commissioners, of whom he was one, had remitted Income Tax upon farmers in some cases. There might be cases of that sort in England; but he thought it had been so generally understood in Scotland that there was no right of appeal by tenant farmers that none had ever attempted to do so. He considered it of great importance that it should go forth that tenant farmers had a right to appeal, for there would be numerous instances forthcoming, which would show that they had not made the profits to justify the imposition of the assessment. It did appear to him that it was most desirable that it should be known that if the tenant farmers did not make profits they would be relieved from the payment of Income Tax. He had known himself instances of tenant farmers who had lost in one year more than their rent. Yet, such was the opinion in the district, that they were charged the Income Tax assessment irrespective of their loss, and no such right of appeal was given them; indeed, they had never tried to raise the question. He therefore thought that this question was of great importance to the agricultural interests; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into his consideration, and make the law such that there could be no doubt upon the subject. If a right of appeal were inherent in the farmers, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, yet he must say that the farmers throughout the country generally had no idea that that was the case. The examples that had been given to the contrary seemed to him only to prove the rule; for all acquainted with the operation of the law must be aware of the fact that farmers generally had regarded themselves, and the public and the Commissioners regarded them, as subject to the assessment payable in respect of the annual value of their farms, without regard to any profit or loss they might make. He thought that this matter should be set clear, that no doubt might remain in the law. The language
    1530
    of this section was the same as before; yet, after the statement of the Attorney General, that farmers had a right of appeal if they chose to exercise it, there was sufficient reason to change the practice, as it was, in effect, changing the law.
    MR. CLARE READwas able to corroborate the hon. and gallant Member for East Essex (Colonel Ruggles-Brise) in the fact that farmers had successfully appealed against their assessments. Twenty-five years ago a friend of his, who kept a remarkably accurate farm account, succeeded in establishing his case before the Commissioners, and the whole of the tax was remitted. The right of appeal was seldom exercised, as the majority of farmers considered that the compromise entered into was right and just, and if they suffered a loss in one year they did not, as a matter of course, appeal; but he should say that if the present condition of things continued they would come to the conclusion that the balance was so entirely against them that they ought to exercise the right, which he believed they possessed, to appeal.
    MR. WHITWELL, after the observations which had been made, thought it absolutely necessary that this matter should be settled. Hitherto it had been considered that this matter was settled; but after what had taken place, it was impossible to revert to the former condition of things. They had, at present, a great many laws regulating these matters. The Income Tax Commissioners required everyone to make a return, although Schedule B provided that certain classes of persons were to be charged, and not assessed, for payment of duty. But now the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said that there was some doubt about what had been the universal practice; and it had also been stated that the right had been put in force. He thought the necessity was clear for the interference on the part of the Government to protect the public Revenue in this matter. Before they moved in the matter with their eyes open, he did think that they should have this matter thoroughly settled.
    MR. W. HOLMSobserved, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that there was no difficulty in construing this clause; but the Attorney General

    1531
    had thrown great doubt and difficulty into the matter, and there was the greatest danger that farmers would try to be quit of Income Tax by appealing. If it were desired by the agricultural interests that there should be an alteration, and that in future farmers should be treated as tradesmen, by all means let it be so. If they made no profits, let them not pay for any; but, on the other hand, if in one year they made a profit two or three years greater than their rental, let them pay upon it. It was unreasonable to say that they should pay Income Tax on half their rental in good years, but in bad years they would pay none at all. He ventured to say that, upon the whole, the present system was a good one; and up to the present time few or no complaints had been made against it.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREhad been surprised to hear from the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Bead), and the hon. and gallant Member for East Essex (Colonel Ruggles-Brise), that farmers had been in the habit of appealing; in his opinion, that had not been the universal practice of the country. He had listened to the explanation of the Attorney General, and it seemed to him that he had given two explanations. He said that if a farmer proved he had made a less profit than his rent for a considerable number of years, his rent was not to be taken at the annual measure of value; but he also said that if, in any particular year, a farmer could show not to have made any profit, then his Income Tax was to be remitted. If the second interpretation of the Attorney General was to hold good, in the long run it would turn out a very good thing for the farmers. The one generally acted upon was, he believed, the right interpretation of the clause as it stood. Before altering the clause, he thought it would be desirable to hear something more definite about the matter.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)denied having used such expressions as were attributed to him. What he stated was, that the question turned upon the meaning of the term "annual value." Upon that he ventured to express the opinion that the annual value did not necessarily mean rent. He held that if a landlord chose to let a man a piece of land worth £2
    1532
    an acre for 5s. an acre, then the rent would not necessarily represent the annual value of that land. The whole question was, what was the annual value of the land? If a tenant for a number of years, or for one year, did not make anything out of the land, then that was a piece of evidence which went to show that the land was worth less than the rent he paid for it. In some cases land was let for more than it was worth; but in many cases the rent was good evidence of the value of the land. In ordinary cases it might be taken as conclusive that the value of the land was what the tenant chose to pay for it. Nevertheless, as a matter of law, it was not conclusive that the rent was the annual value of the land. That was all the opinion he expressed.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREventured to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General upon this particular point, so far as he had just stated his opinion; but he would point out that what he now said differed from his statement the other night, and also differed from what he had said later in his remarks that evening. If a man paid rent beyond the annual value of the land, then he ought to be assessed at the annual value of the land.
    MR. RYLANDSobserved, that at the time the Income Tax Commissioners granted relief in the cases mentioned the Surveyor of Taxes must have been present, and if any question had, in his opinion, arisen, he would have required a case to be stated to be carried to a higher Court. The cases to which allusion had been made proved that the officials for the collection of the Income Tax put such an interpretation upon the clause as corresponded with the opinion of the Attorney General. From what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, he gathered that he not only stated his own opinion as to the meaning of the words, but that, after consultation with the heads of the Department, he had given their opinion also. He wished to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the interpretation which he had given to these words in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill differed from the custom which prevailed in most parts of the Kingdom, and which was almost, if not generally, universal throughout the country. In consequence of this discussion the point would, no doubt, be

    1533
    hereafter raised; and there would be appeals in many districts where they had not hitherto taken place. If the Department was of opinion that the effect of the clause was not what it was understood to be, then relief would be granted in a much larger number of cases. There might be a farmer, paying a rental of £1,000 a-year, who had been assessed at £500; he might claim relief because he had not made £500, but only £400 a-year; and, having kept accurate accounts, he would get assessment reduced to £400 a-year. But, upon that £400 a-year, he would have to pay 2½d. in the pound; whereas a tradesman, making £500 a-year, would have to pay 5d. in the pound. It was clear that if there was any meaning in this, it meant that under Schedule B a tenant farmer would be charged upon half his rental, and was to pay 2½d. in the pound. There could also be no doubt that a tradesman, making £400 a-year profit, would be charged 5d. in the pound. In his opinion, there ought to be a distinct understanding with the Government that this new interpretation of the Act should be made perfectly clear.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) showed clearly how the Committee had allowed itself to fall into a misconception in its idea of the law. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of farmers being charged upon half their rents, and had then gone on to say that they would pay 2½d. in the pound upon half their rent. The fact was that this was a charge made upon the annual value of the land; and that the occupier of that land paid 2½d. in the pound upon that value, which was equivalent to 5d. in the pound upon half of it. In that way, it would be seen that the difficulty suggested by the hon. Gentleman was got rid of. He would call the attention of the Committee to the real question under discussion. What this section of the Bill did was to affirm that there should be payable for every 20 s. of annual value 5d. in the pound by the owner, and that the occupier of the land should pay 2½d. But 5d. in the pound was charged upon the annual value of the land. The annual value of lands, tenements, and hereditaments charged in Schedule A was to be deemed to be the rent paid for them within a period of seven years preceding the assessment.
    1534
    But if the sum were not a rack rent, then they were to charge at such rack rent as the same would be worth if let from year to year. The provisions which were laid down in the Act he apprehended to be such as had been found to work satisfactorily and clearly. They had been asked to make some change in the law with regard to the power of appeal which, undoubtedly, existed, because it might be put in force, and appeals in certain cases would have to be allowed. But, supposing they did make a change, what was the nature of the change which hon. Gentlemen wished? Did they wish the Government to take away the power of appeal? On the part of the Government, he might say that they did not wish to take it away, but to leave the matter as it stood. He thought they would be wasting the time of the Committee by reporting Progress at that hour. The Government was satisfied to leave the matter where it stood, and there could be no reason for postponing the discussion.
    MR. M'LAGANsupposed that farmers were treated like other traders, so that if they made no profits for successive years they could obtain a reduction in their assessment. The reason for appeals not having been frequent arose, no doubt, from the fact that farmers were not good book-keepers; but after the bad years they had experienced, no doubt, farmers would find it to their interest to keep their books accurately, in order to get their appeals allowed.
    MR. HERSCHELLsaid, that after the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it would be seen that this discussion was of no small importance; for, if his view were correct, it was obvious that certain Commissioners of Income Tax had been illegally reducing the Income Tax. If such misapprehension prevailed, it was desirable to investigate the matter, and to set it at rest. He understood the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be that farmers were assessed upon the annual value of their land. The annual value appeared to him to be something totally distinct from the profits made by farming. When the intention was to take the profits eo nomine, there was no doubt or question about the matter. But the taxation was not upon the profits of the farmer, it was a tax upon the occupation of his land, for whatever purpose and in

    1535
    whatever way it was occupied. A sort of compromise was come to by which occupiers of land were taxed in a certain way; they were taxed upon the annual value, and not upon the profits made for any particular period. Because a man did not make any profit at all in one year, that was no element in considering the annual value of the land he occupied. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out that there was an Interpretation Clause in the Act which showed the meaning of the term annual rent. The test was, if the land had been let for several years at a rack rent, that was the test of the annual value; and if the land had not been let at a rack rent, then what it would have let for at the rack rent. Whether a man made much, or little, or no profit, was nothing to do with what the land was let for, or what it could have let for; and it was upon that annual value so ascertained that tenant farmers were to pay Income Tax. If that principle were thorougly understood, there could be no difficulty in the the matter; if this rule were borne in mind, he did not see that there would be any difficulty or danger in leaving the matter as it was. The difficulty had really arisen from the expressions of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, which had led to an idea that the profits in any particular year were a test of what the farmer had to pay; but he thought that the real test was what the particular land he occupied let for at a rack rent, or would have let for at a rack rent.
    MR. FAWCETTremarked, that as he had moved to report Progress he wished to say one or two words in reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would be one of the last to waste the time of the Committee, or to oppose obstructively in any way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed at a loss to know what they were contending for; and for that reason he wished to be allowed to explain the principle for which they were contending. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that it was the intention of Parliament that farmers should be assessed in a particular way; and he had further said that that had been the intention ever since the Income Tax had been first imposed. No one doubted but that it had always been the intention of Parliament to assess farmers upon half the
    1536
    annual value or rent of their land, and not upon their profits. The question they had to consider was, whether the Bill which they were now asked to pass would give effect to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was the intention of Parliament? They had had a most unanswerable argument in support of the opinion that the Bill would, not give effect to the intentions attributed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Parliament. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), and the hon. and gallant Member for East Essex (Colonel Ruggles-Brise), spoke from their practical experience, and showed that appeals from farmers had been allowed, and that farmers were allowed to be assessed upon their profits. They could not go further than the Income Tax Commissioners; but since the sense and authority of the Attorney General had been given to this interpretation of the law, the appeals which had taken place as yet in only a few instances in the past would, considering the present state of agriculture, be very numerous in the future. He believed that tens of thousands of farmers in the country could prove that they had made no profits during the past year; and they would have the authority of the Attorney General in claiming to have their Income Tax assessments made, not upon half the annual value of their land, but upon the profits they might make. Was it to be supposed that the farmers would be so wanting in common sense as to hesitate to avail themselves of any doubt in the law and to appeal to the Income Tax Commissioners, when there was a great probability of success? What they were contending for was simply this—They did not wish to dispute the accuracy of the interpretation placed upon the intentions of Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but all they contended for was that the Bill did not accurately represent those intentions. Supposing some months hence an appeal were made to the Income Tax Commissioners, they would have to interpret this Act—they would have to administer the law; and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated his opinion of what the intentions of Parliament were, yet the Commissioners would have quoted to them the opinion of the Attorney General, to the effect that the Bill did not accurately represent the in-

    1537
    tentions of Parliament. They simply asked that this Bill should be put beyond the possibility of dispute, and that the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government in that House should be given effect to. It seemed to him to be absolutely impossible for anyone who had listened to the discussion to say that the Bill accurately represented the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of Parliament with regard to the mode of assessing the Income Tax upon farmers. Under these circumstances, they desired, not in the slightest degree for the sake of obstruction of Public Business, but with a view to facilitate it, to be allowed to report Progress. On another occasion, perhaps, the Attorney General would be able to inform them that what they know to be the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of Parliament were carried into effect beyond the possibility of doubt.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 57: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 114.)
    MR. W. HOLMS MR. W. HOLMS moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. William Holms.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)wished to say a few words with regard to this question, which he admitted to be one of considerable importance. The opinion he expressed a few moments ago he still desired to adhere to—namely, that the rent paid did not absolutely represent the annual value. No doubt, the Interpretation Clause in the former Act, to which attention had been drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must be considered; but there might be cases in which that did not entirely set the matter at rest. In some instances, rent did not represent the annual value; and it would be impossible to alter the Bill to make it assume another and a different form from what it now did, in order to make that intelligible. It would not be accurate to use the expression rent instead of annual value; because if they used the expression rent instead of annual value, they would use a misleading term for rent, and would not indi-
    1538
    cate under what circumstances the rent was to be taken as a criterion. Moreover, if the expression rent was substituted for annual value, they would not subject the tenant farmer to the amount of Income Tax that they desired to subject him to. Exception had been taken to an answer of his given to a Question put some time ago. He had been taken severely to task for that answer, which had been stigmatized as entirely erroneous. At the time he made that answer, he looked into the question as carefully as he could, and he consulted others more competent than himself in the matter. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to the matter, they would find that the answer which he gave was perfectly accurate. He was desirous of satisfying hon. Members fully upon the subject. But it was said that the answer which he gave upon a question of law was entirely erroneous. The question was whether, if a tenant farmer could establish that he had made less profits than the amount upon which he was taxed, had he any remedy? He answered, in reference to the provisions of the Statute 14 & 15 Vict. c. 12—an Act passed subsequent to the similar Statute in 1851—what he thought would take place. He would draw the attention of the Committee to the provisions of section 3 of that Act, which seemed to him to be perfectly plain and distinct. The section of the Act ran thus—
    "That if at the end of the year of assessment of the said duties under this Act, any person occupying lands for the purposes of husbandry only, and obtaining his livelihood principally from husbandry, who shall have been assessed in the said year to the duties chargeable under (Schedule B of the said first recited Act in respect of such lands shall find and shall prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioners by whom the assessment was made, that his profits and gains arising from the occupation of such lands during the said year fall short of the sum on which the assessment was made, it shall be lawful for the said Commissioners, upon appeal made to them in that behalf within three calendar months after the expiration of the said year and of which notice in writing shall be given to the Surveyor of Taxes for the district, to cause an abatement to be made from the amount of the said duties charged on such appellant proportionate to the deficiency of his said profits and gains; and in case the whole sum assessed shall have been paid, the amount of the sum overpaid shall be certified and repaid in like manner as is provided by Section 133 of the said first recited Act in the case of any overpayment of the duties assessed under Schedule D of the same Act."

    1539
    It seemed to him, at the time when he investigated the matter, that this section was exactly applicable to it; and that, under these circumstances, an appeal might be made. He did not at the moment remember the Act upon which he passed his opinion. He would again repeat that, in his view, under all the circumstances, annual value was not an expression of the word "rent;" and that, instead of amending this Bill, they would make it a great deal worse, if they inserted the word "rent" instead of the expression "annual value." Of course, the annual value must be read by the light of the Interpretation Clause of the Act. Upon the answer he had given, to which so much exception had been taken, he claimed the good judgment of the Committee as to its accuracy.
    MR. W. HOLMSobserved, that the discussion on that clause formed the best reason why the debate should be adjourned. They were now told that there was a provision which was entirely at variance with the first Act, and that the general idea of people as to the meaning in the clause as it stood was contrary to what had been done in connection with it. He thought it was very desirable that the Government should consider this question, whether or not farmers were to be assessed, as hitherto, by paying upon half their rentals, or whether the question of profits was to have any influence in the matter. For that reason, he had moved that the Chairman should leave the Chair.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 62: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 115.)
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, it was clear that the Attorney General had been right in his construction of this clause, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been wrong in his interpretation of it. He would point out that they were at a period when a matter like this would really affect the Revenue. The practice had been that the net annual value of land should be taken as the basis for payment of Income Tax. It had been thought by some that it was a compromise, and was a fixed absolute arrangement, and it had been accepted as such by the agricultural interests generally. But, within the last few
    1540
    weeks, it had been stated by hon. Gentlemen opposite that instances had come under their notice in which not the annual value, but the net profits, had been taken as the basis for an assessment. In the absence of profits no Income Tax was paid. The tax ought to be paid by someone, and the question was, who was to pay it? They had good reasons in which farmers made a good deal more than the amount upon which they were assessed, and, of course, they had bad ones also. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must see what would be the result upon the reading of such a statement as that made by the Attorney General. They ought to come to some understanding as to what was to be the principle upon which Income Tax was to be levied upon the agricultural community. The Committee ought to have some time given it to consider the matter. For these reasons, he moved—without any desire to impede the Business of the House, but in order that the matter should be settled in a manner satisfactory to all, and in the interests of the agricultural community—that Progress should then be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Mundella.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked that, after two Divisions, at that hour of the morning the Government would not oppose the Motion. He wished to put this matter upon a definite footing. They had been challenged as to the meaning of the Act, and it had been thoroughly explained, so that there could be no doubt whatever upon the subject. So far as the Government was concerned, it was entirely satisfied to leave the matter alone as it now stood, and to take the rent as evidence of the annual value, with a provision, inserted nine years after the first Act was passed, giving the occupier an appeal. The only alteration which had been suggested, he believed, by some hon. Members opposite, was that they should repeal that provision of the Act of 1851 for the benefit of the occupier and tenant. If that were the proposal, and hon. Gentlemen wished to do it, they should resist it. In any proposals that they had made, they intended in

    1541
    no degree whatever to vary the tax as it now bore upon the occupying tenants.
    Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].
(Mr. Attorney General.)
[BILL 134.] COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
MR. COURTNEYsaw no reason why this Bill should be taken before the Bankruptcy Bill. If that Bill did not advance to a second reading, there was no reason for this being taken.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that this Bill not only took power to appoint a Judge, but there were several Amendments upon the Judicature Acts which it was absolutely necessary to make. No doubt, the appointment of a new Judge would depend upon the passing of the Bankruptcy Bill; but with regard to the other provisions of this Bill they would be necessary in any case.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

MOTIONS.
  SPIRITS.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Acts read; considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER) moved,
    "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to consolidate the Law relating to the distilling, rectifying, or compounding, and dealing in or retailing spirits."
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONinquired the nature of this Bill?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that the Bill did not alter the law in the least degree. It simply consolidated the Act which related to the distillation, rectification, compounding, and dealing in spirits.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 203.]

    LINEN AND HEMPEN MANUFACTURES (IRELAND) BILL.
    Acts read; considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate, amend, and continue the Laws relating to Linen, Hempen, and other manufactures in Ireland.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES LOWTHER and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 202.]

    POOR REMOVAL.
    Select Committee on Poor Removal nominated:—Mr. HIBBERT, Viscount EMLYN, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Captain CORRY, Sir ARTHUR MIDDLETON, Mr. HANBURY, Mr. RAMSAY, Mr. FORSYTH, Mr. FRENCH, Mr. TORR, Mr. MARTIN, Mr. GILES, Mr. MARK STEWART, Mr. SYNAN, and Mr. SALT.

    MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT (NO. 3) BILL.
    Select Committee on the Medical Act (1858) Amendment (No. 3) Bill nominated:—Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. DALRYMPLE, Mr. ERRINGTON, Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. HEYGATE, Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Sir TREVOR LAWRENCE, Mr. LUSH, Mr. MITCHELL HENRY, Mr. ARTHUR MILLS, Mr. LYON PLAY-FAIR, Mr. Serjeant SIMON, Mr. DAVID PLUNKET, and Mr. WHEELHOUSE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.