Sitting of 6 March 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1878–9—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Exchequer Bonds (No. 1) [92]; Public Health Act (1875) Amendment* [33].
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*; Racecourses (Metropolis) [48].

QUESTIONS.
  CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY (IRELAND) —SPEECH OF MR. W. JOHNSTON.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SULLIVANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention
    274
    has been called to a report in the "Belfast News Letter" of the 12th instant of a party demonstration in Belfast, stated to have been presided over by Mr. W. Johnston, Orange Grand Master, who was surrounded by members wearing the insignia of the Order, and who commenced his speech by addressing his auditory as "Brother Orangemen;" whether in that speech Mr. Johnston announced his and their
    "determination to maintain to the utmost of our power the position which we now occupy as Conservatives and Orangemen in this great frontier town of Belfast,"
    and thereupon proceeded to inveigh against the Catholic claim for a Catholic University, declaring that a Catholic University would "pervert moral philosophy and stifle free thought and free inquiry;" whether this gentleman is a salaried official of the Crown, as Commissioner of Irish Fisheries; and, whether such a display of feeling will be tolerated by Her Majesty's Government on the part of a salaried public functionary?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, my attention was called to the report by the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I communicated with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the subject. The report, as given in the Question of the hon. and learned Member, is correct. Of course, it is known to the House that Mr. Johnston is a salaried official of the Crown, and a Commissioner of Irish Fisheries. Mr. Johnston, as we all know, sat for many years in this House, and he has recently become a member of the permanent Civil Service, and is, perhaps, hardly aware as yet how very objectionable the use of such expressions must be, as placing him in an embarrassing position, and in one that is inconsistent with that of a salaried servant of the Crown. My right hon. Friend has given him a caution on the subject, and it is to be hoped that there will not be a repetition of such observations.

  PUBLIC WORKS (INDIA)—CONSTRUCTION OF INDIAN RAILWAYS.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the Indian Go-

    275
    vernment have granted concessions which will enable a Railway to be made from Bellary to Marmagoa in Portuguese territory, in preference to the proposed State Railway of 1872 from Bellary to Karwar in British territory; to whom the concession has been made; and, whether the Correspondence which has passed on this subject between the Home and the Indian Governments will be laid upon the Table?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The promise of a conditional concession has been made by the Secretary of State in Council to Mr. Frederick Campbell for the construction of a railway from Bellary to Marmagoa, but not necessarily in substitution for that from Bellary to Karwar. Some particulars will be found in the Evidence taken last year by the Select Committee on Public Works in India. I will put the Correspondence in the Library; and if, after examining it, the hon. Baronet still thinks it of sufficient public interest and will move for it, he can have it as an unopposed Return.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—REMOVAL OF IRISH PAUPERS.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR NOLANhad a Notice on the Paper to ask the President of the Local Government Board, If it is a fact that a man named Patrick Feeny, who had been resident over twenty years in Blackburn, was removed from the Blackburn Workhouse Hospital and sent in charge of a Poor Law official to Dublin; if this official left him in Dublin with a loaf of bread and with two shillings to defray his expenses to Gort, in the county of Galway, a distance of 130 miles; if Patrick Feeny had been nine months in hospital suffering from paralysis, and if at the time he was left in Dublin he was in a state of great debility and scarcely able to crawl; and, further, was any certificate of a doctor procured before the man was thus removed, and what were the terms of the certificate, and was any promise made by any of the workhouse officials to Patrick Feeny before quitting Blackburn that he would be left in Gort?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, the Notice had already been put on the Paper by the hon. and gallant Member, and he had assured him on a previous occasion that there was no foundation for the statement contained with re-
  276
  ference to Feeny. He thought it rather hard on the Blackburn Union that the subject should be again brought forward without any further information being forthcoming.

  ARMY—WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been directed to a correspondence in respect to a contract for locks furnished to the War Office, in which it is stated that a person furnished locks at a very large percentage above purchase price; if he has taken any steps to find if these allegations are correct; and, whether there was any particular reason why that tradesman was selected to supply the locks?
    COLONEL STANLEY: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I may state that my attention has been called to the correspondence respecting the locks furnished to the War Office, or, rather, to the contractor, and I have taken steps to find out whether the allegations implied in the Question are correct; but I have not yet received all the particulars I require before I express an opinion on the subject. I only hope that the hon. Member will repeat his Question in about a week's time.

  POST OFFICE—THE BOOK POST.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Postmaster General, If he would explain to the House why letters and book packets between the limits of eighteen and twenty-four inches in length, and nine and twelve inches in depth, are permitted to pass through all parts of the kingdom if intended for delivery in the Colonies or abroad, and yet are absolutely prohibited from inland circulation; whether the Postmaster General is aware that a packet of that size posted in France is delivered by the Post Office in this Country notwithstanding these regulations; and, whether the Post Office could not adopt with advantage the standard rule that prevails in most Foreign Countries and in the Colonies of a maximum of twenty-four inches in length?
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, bulky packets are so inconvenient to deal with,

    277
    especially when the mail bags containing them are exchanged by apparatus, that it was found necessary some years ago to reduce the dimensions. Larger packets are permitted to be sent to foreign countries, and are sometimes received from foreign parts, but they are so few in number that, practically, no inconvenience is experienced from their transmission; but I am informed that it would be highly inexpedient to alter the rule of the inland post in this respect.

  "GENERAL STATISTICAL ABSTRACT" —FOREIGN TARIFFS ON BRITISH PRODUCE.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can furnish a Return of the tariff in the principal articles of British and Irish produce which was levied in the principal countries of Europe, and America, and in the Colonies, in 1859, and which is levied this year; and, whether a Return of such tariffs can be included in the General Statistical Abstract for future years?
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: In the absence of my noble Friend, who, I regret to say, is unexpectedly absent, owing to domestic affliction, I may ask leave to answer the right hon. Gentleman's Question. With regard to the first part of it, we shall be happy to give the right hon. Gentleman a Return which will probably supply him with the information he desires. With regard to the latter part, I fear that we shall not be able to include the whole information in the Statistical Abstract, as it would add very largely to the bulk of that document; but we shall be glad to consider how much it will be possible to give in that form with due regard to the public convenience.

  IRELAND—ATTENDANCE OF IRISH RESIDENT MAGISTRATES AT PETTY SESSIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. COGANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he can state when the Returns, ordered by the House of Commons last Session, relative to the attendance of Resident Magistrates at Petty Sessions in Ireland, will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I hope we will be able to lay them on the Table tonight.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS (IRELAND).

    QUESTION.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the provisions of the Bill, now in preparation, for the purpose of carrying out certain recommendations of the Select Committee which inquired last Session into the mode of election of Poor Law guardians are to be extended to Ireland, or whether a separate Bill for Ireland will be brought in by the Government?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I have no knowledge of any such Bill as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I conclude that it cannot in any way be intended to apply to Ireland. The Report of the Committee to which reference is made is now under the consideration of the Government, and the decision at which we arrive will in due course be communicated to the House.

  TURKEY—APPOINTMENT OF A FINANCE COMMISSIONER.

    QUESTION.
    MR. COGANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any reply has been given with reference to the application made by the Porte for the appointment of a Financial Commissioner?
    MR. BOURKE: Yes, Sir; this subject has received the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and we are communicating with the French Government. That is now being done.

  ARMY—HALF-PAY SERVICE.

    QUESTION.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for War, If, when he considers the question of half-pay service, owing to sickness not being allowed to count towards voluntary retirement, he will also take into consideration the case of those officers who have been promoted to the Half-pay List, as a reward for their services, and yet are not permitted to reckon such half-pay service towards voluntary retirement?
    COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, he had no objection to refer this subject to a small Committee, which would, at the same time, inquire into the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hereford (Colonel Arbuthnot).

  IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT—LEGISLATION. —QUESTION.
  MR. M. T. BASSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure affecting the Law by which imprisonment for debt now exists?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: A Bill has already been introduced into the other House of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor in order to amend the Act of 1869. Necessary amendments will be made in consequence of the Bankruptcy Bill which has also been introduced in the House of Lords; and when it comes down here it will be competent for the hon. Member to raise the question, when Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to state their views upon the subject, and to see whether any alteration of the existing law in reference to it is required.

  INDIA—THE NORTH-WESTERN FRONTIER —THE OCCUPATION OF QUETTAH. —QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will communicate to the House the "precise instructions" authorizing the occupation of Quettah which were given by Her Majesty's Government, and the reasons which induced them to authorize that measure, which, by a Despatch dated December 26, 1867, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the part of the Government then in power, had declared would be inexpedient both on political and military grounds?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It seems to me that this is a Question of a very argumentative character. It is intended, probably, to provoke some debate. I cannot understand what is the object of the hon. Member in putting the words "precise instructions" in inverted commas. [Mr. DILLWYN: They are quoted from a despatch.] I do not know what the hon. Member refers to. There are no precise instructions authorizing the occupation of Quettah; but if he will turn to the Papers presented last Session and the Session before he will see that there is a despatch from the Government of India, dated the 23rd of March, 1877, and a despatch from the Secretary of
  280
  State of the 13th of December following, which gives full information as to the reasons why the Indian Government at that time decided, upon the request of the Khan of Khelat, to send a British Force from Hindostan, and selected Quettah as the proper post.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON—NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM.—QUESTION.
  LORD ARTHUR RUSSELLasked the First Commissioner of Works, What progress has been made in the Natural History Museum at South Kensington, and when the removal of the collections from the British Museum may be expected?
  MR. GERARD NOEL, in reply, said, it depended very much on the Votes of the House when that work would be completed. At the present moment very costly fittings were being made for those collections; and he hoped that in the course of the present year the botanical and mineral collections would be placed in the new buildings.

  THE TREATY OF BERLIN—EASTERN ROUMELIA.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. WHITWELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House what progress the Commission appointed to "elaborate the organisation of Eastern Roumelia" has made; whether it has "determined" upon "the powers and functions of the Governor General as well as the administrative system, judicial and financial, of the province;" whether the Russian troops are expected to evacuate Eastern Roumelia at the expiration of nine months from the ratification of the Treaty of Berlin, although the Commission may not have completed its work; and, whether the troops of the Porte will enter into the province on the departure of the Russians?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that the Commission appointed to elaborate the organization of Eastern Roumelia had been engaged in drawing up a Constitution for that Province. The different chapters of the Constitution had been divided among the members of the Commission, and he thought that more than six chapters had already been completed. Among the chapters so completed were, he was informed, those relating to public rights, the powers of

  281
  the Governor General, and finance. The hon. Member asked—
  "Whether the Russian troops are expected to evacuate Eastern Roumelia at the expiration of nine months from the ratification of the Treaty of Berlin, although the Commission may not have completed its work?"
  His answer to that was, "Yes, certainly." With regard to the Question—
  "Whether the troops of the Porte will enter into the province on the departure of the Russians?"
  he would refer the hon. Member to the Treaty, which said that the troops of the Porte shall be able to garrison the Frontier of the Province, and in the event of disorder shall have the power of entering the Province. He could not at present lay any Papers on the Table in connection with the proceedings of the Commission.
  MR. E. JENKINS: With regard to the answer given to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Kendal, I wish to ask, Whether it is to be distinctly understood that it is in the contemplation of the Government, in the event of disorder in Eastern Roumelia, that the whole of the district shall be left to the mercy of the Turkish troops?
  MR. BOURKE: In my reply to the hon. Member for Kendal I referred him to the Treaty; and I must give the same answer to the hon. Member for Dundee.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE RE-INFORCEMENTS. —QUESTION.
  COLONEL MURE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether any regiments of the Line are being completed up to their war strength in case additional reinforcements should be required for the Army in Zululand, or in the other British Colonies of South Africa, and, if so, what regiments; and if no regiments are thus being completed, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will inform the House what troops will be sent out should additional re-inforcements be required?
  COLONEL STANLEY: In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that upon the regiments becoming what is called first for service on the roster they are gradually brought up to their proper strength. That is so under ordinary circumstances, as different bat-
  282
  talions go abroad to complete their tour, whether of active or foreign service. We are not taking any unusual steps to fill up the battalions; nor, at the present time, do I apprehend that re-inforcements will be required. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that the number of battalions sent out was in excess of those demanded by the authorities on the spot. I would further state, in order to put myself technically right, that the battalions sent out to the Cape are, in round numbers, 840 strong. A battalion technically on the war strength would be over 1,000 strong. It is not intended to bring them up to that strength.

  AFGHANISTAN—OPERATIONS IN KHOST VALLEY.—QUESTION.
  MR. ONSLOW: I wish to ask the Undersecretary of State for India, Whether any Report has been received from Major General Roberts as to operations in the Khost Valley; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay it on the Table of the House?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir; we have just received a Report from Major General Roberts as to operations in the Khost Valley; and as the attention of the House has been rather specially called to those operations, I shall be happy to lay the Report on the Table.

  AFGHANISTAN—DISTURBANCES IN BURMAH.—QUESTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish to give Notice that, on Monday, I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government intend to lay upon the Table any further Papers relating to the War in Afghanistan; and, further, with reference to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman on the re-assembling of the House, whether he intends shortly to make any Statement to the House on the subject? I would also take the opportunity of asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have not been able to give him Notice, owing to the report having just reached me. I wish to ask, Whether there is any truth in the report that, in consequence of disturbances which have taken place in Burmah, a British Force has been ordered there?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have not heard the report

  283
  alluded to by the noble Marquess, nor has my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs heard anything of it. I presume, therefore, that it is not correct.

  IRELAND—WATERFORD HARBOUR BOARD.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'GORMANasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the subject of the defalcations of the secretary of the Harbour Board of Waterford; and, if so, what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): My attention has been called to the matter referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, but the proceedings do not, in my opinion, call for interference. I believe that the secretary has resigned his office.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL—THE MUTINY BILL.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it might be for the convenience of the House, with reference to this Bill, which was one of the Orders of the Day, if he called attention to an Amendment which stood on the Paper in the name of an hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), namoly—
    "That, having regard to the intended permanent character of the provisions of this Bill, and the consequent necessity for their careful consideration, it is desirable to provide for the administration of the Law pending the passing of this Bill by renewing the existing Mutiny Acts for a period of three months."
    Although every effort had been made to place the Bill in the hands of hon. Members as speedily as possible, he was unable to proceed with it that night; and, accepting the Amendment to which he had referred in the same spirit in which he presumed it was proposed—namely, as one meant for the convenience of the House—he would not offer any opposition to that Amendment on the part of the Government, on the understanding, which he took to be implied in it, that the Bill for the continuance of the Mutiny Act for three months, pending the consideration of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, should be a simple Continuance Bill, to be
    284
    passed without Amendment. After the promise given by his noble Friend who preceded him in his present Office, he had felt bound to do all that he could to spare the House the necessity of passing the Mutiny Acts again in the existing form. But having redeemed that promise to the best of his power, he could not help feeling that it would be convenient to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, with the understanding he had mentioned. With the leave of the House, therefore—the number of men having been voted—he would on Monday next introduce a mere Continuance Bill such as he had described. He might add that there were several precedents for the passing of a mere Continuance Bill of that kind.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  KEW GARDENS.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCErose to call attention to the existing Regulations for the opening of Kew Gardens to the public; and to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Royal Gardens at Kew should be opened to the public at 10 a.m. on week days, with such reservations as may be found expedient."
  In bringing this subject before the House he disclaimed all feeling of hostility, or even of indifference, either to the interests of botanical science or of Kew Gardens. On the contrary, he had always taken great interest in botanical and horticultural pursuits, and he regarded Kew Gardens as being the most successful botanical establishment in the world. His only motive, therefore, was to further the interests of the English public in this matter. The outlay of public money on the Gardens was very large. Last year it was, in round numbers, £20,000, and this year it was somewhat over £18,000. This constituted one-sixth of the whole amount voted by Parliament for the Parks and pleasure-grounds of the United Kingdom. The

  285
  number of visitors to Kew Gardens was constantly increasing. In 1877 it was 678,972, being considerably larger than the number of visitors to the British Museum, exclusive of the Reading Room. On the occasion of two Bank holidays last year close upon 60,000 visitors entered the Gardens in one day. One proof that good had been done by the movement for extending the hours during which the Gardens were open to the public was afforded by the fact that on Bank holidays the Gardens were now open at 10 o'clock, instead of 1 o'clock, as was formerly the case. That the change was appreciated was shown by the circumstance that on Easter Monday 4,000 people, and on Whit Monday 5,000 people, entered the Gardens before 1 o'clock. In another matter the movement for an earlier opening had done good—for owing to it the regulations for the admission of botanists and horticulturists, during hours when the Gardens were closed, had been put upon a regular footing, and they no longer had the scandal of such people being refused admittance. While agreeing with the Director that in all matters connected with Kew botanical science had a paramount claim, he showed by quotations from the Reports of Dr. Linley and of Sir William Hooker, that the Gardens ought to become an efficient instrument for refining the taste and for increasing the knowledge and rational pleasure of the middle and lower classes. The Gardens covered an area altogether of about 400 acres; the botanic portion consisting of 75 acres, the pleasure-grounds of 275 acres, and the Royal Reserve, which was not much used, of 40 acres. He desired that increased facilities should be given for the enjoyment of these Gardens. They were opened throughout the year at 1 o'clock, with the exception of Christmas Day, and closed at sunset. Thus in the winter season they were opened about two hours and three-quarters, and about seven hours in the summer, during the longest days. At Dublin, however, the Botanical Gardens were open from 10 to 6 all the year round. At Edinburgh the Botanical Gardens were open daily, except on Sundays, from 6 to 6; from daylight to dark in winter; and from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. in June, July, and August. The Jardin des Plants at Paris was open daily from 8 o'clock till dark. The
  286
  Botanical Gardens of Berlin were open for nine hours every day, except Saturday and Sunday; but although they were entirely closed on two days of the week, they were in the course of each year open for a longer period than Kew Gardens. At Hamburg the Botanical Gardens were open from sunrise to sunset; and at Geneva they were open every day during daylight. The Botanical Gardens at Rouen, Lyons, Caen, and other places in France were also open daily during daylight. Sir Daniel Cooper, formerly Speaker of the House at Sydney, stated that at Sydney the Botanical Gardens were open from 6 a.m. till 8 p.m. in summer, and while there was daylight in winter, adding that they were a general resort of residents of the city during all hours of the day. All these Gardens were open much more liberally to the public than those at Kew; and when it was said that it was impossible to do at Kew what was done elsewhere, he might fairly ask why it should be so? It was alleged that there was no real demand for the opening of the Gardens except a local demand. But the Vestries and local bodies of the West of London and the suburbs, almost without exception, had memorialized the House in favour of an early opening. He himself presented last year one of the largest Petitions he had seen presented since he had become a Member of the House for the early opening of the Gardens. Then, it was said that opening at 10 o'clock would interfere with the students and the workmen. As regards students, in proportion to its size, there were few at Kew compared with Edinburgh, where 389 attended lectures and botanical demonstrations in 1877. The students at Edinburgh were also able to carry on their studies without any inconvenience from the attendance of visitors, who numbered nearly 80,000. Then, as to the work of the Gardens—which consisted mainly in rolling a large extent of paths, mowing a quantity of grass, and raking and keeping the beds in order—he appealed to the common sense of any gentleman who had experience in such matters, whether the presence of people in the Gardens was likely to interfere with that? There was one respect in which he regretted very much the view taken by the Director, and that was as to the behaviour of the people. The

  287
  Director stated that on one of the Bank holidays, "no sooner were the gates opened, than a swarm of filthy children and women of the lowest class invaded the Gardens." He (Sir Trevor Lawrence) went to the Gardens in order to see the character of the visitors on this very Bank holiday, and they appeared to him a most decent, respectable, and orderly set of people. The Director also brought the serious charge against the people that they resorted to the woods for immoral purposes in great numbers. If the House considered that that was on an occasion when there were 60,000 persons in the Gardens, he would put it to them whether that was likely to be the case? He did not rely merely upon his own observation, but put himself into communication with the police on the subject; and the Inspector reported that, having made careful inquiry, all the police on duty agreed that they had witnessed no disorder or immoral conduct, nor had they heard any complaints except as to smoking and carrying baskets. He remembered himself, 25 years ago, making protestations of unalterable affection to a lady in a garden, and a more appropriate place for such declarations he could not imagine. With regard to the charges which had been made against the conduct of the people, he might fairly quote our national motto, Honi soit qui mal y pense. Then it was said that the expense would be very much increased—the people would want so much looking after. He did not think the people of this country required to be looked after so much. He had a report from the police authorities stating that there would be no necessity for additional men, and that all that would be required would be a refreshment allowance to the existing number of constables. The earlier opening of the Gardens would only entail an extra cost of £130 per annum, and for that money the use of the Gardens by the public would be extended three hours a-day. It was not necessary that the whole of the Gardens should be thrown open; that might not be desirable. The botanical portion might remain closed, as now, till 1 o'clock; while the pleasure-gardens, which comprised 270 acres, were opened at 10 o'clock. It appeared to him that another reasonable compromise would be that for
  288
  six or eight months in the year the Gardens should be opened at 10 a.m., instead of 1 p.m. He appealed to hon. Members from Scotland and Ireland to assist him in getting the advantages which were enjoyed in their countries. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. T. CAVEseconded the Motion. He believed the great obstacle to any concession in this matter arose, not from public, but from personal reasons. Sir Joseph Hooker and his staff, whom he wished to speak of with all the respect they deserved, had been engaged in a most unpleasant correspondence with their neighbours. He was not complaining of the course they had taken; but the fact was, that they had built a very ugly wall in the face of some very pretty villas, at which the inhabitants of those villas were naturally irate. He was afraid that the language and the spirit which had been manifested on both sides were not such as to conduce to a settlement of the question. In consequence of that discussion a bitter feeling had been established between the parties; and Sir Joseph Hooker was determined to do all he could to prevent his neighbours from getting from the House the concession they desired to get. He (Mr. T. Cave) resided in that district; he had a large family and received many friends, and nothing pleased him better than to take his friends to the Kew Gardens. He was accustomed to enter them, not only from the public road, but by the entrances from the River; and he could say, without fear of contradiction, that he had never in his life seen or heard of the slightest approach to immorality. But if it was true that there was immorality, the earlier hours would rather tend to decrease than increase it; because he knew that much intemperance resulted from people going down to Kew in ignorance of this strange and arbitrary rule. People went down in large numbers, and were compelled to remain in public-houses for two or three hours before they could gain admittance. In the interests, therefore, of temperance, of science, and of morality, he cordially seconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the

  289
  Royal Gardens at Kew should be opened to the public at 10 a.m. on week-days, with such reservations as may be found expedient,"—(Sir Trevor Lawrence,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. GERARD NOELsaid, he had little to add upon this question to what he had stated when it was brought forward last year. The question had been very carefully considered by the Department, and there were two very strong reasons against the proposal. In the first place, it would very materially add to the annual expenditure; and, in the second place, it would altogether alter the character of the Gardens, and the purpose for which they were originally established. The gardeners went to work in the morning, and remained till 12 o'clock, when they went to dinner; after that they appeared in the Gardens as constables, and if the Gardens were opened at 10 an increased staff would be necessary, at an expense of from £1,500 to £2,000 a-year. Were there any sufficient grounds for this additional outlay? He was informed, on the best authority, that the majority of those who visited the Gardens did not go there till long after the time the Gardens were opened. On Bank holiday in August last year the Gardens had been opened at 10, when the number of visitors was about 58,000. Of that vast number, not more than 4,000 entered before 2 o'clock. Between 10 and 11 only about 600 were admitted; between 11 and 12, 1,200; between 12 and 2, about 2,000. This, he thought, clearly showed that the public had no particular desire to enter the Gardens before 1 o'clock. And, indeed, how was it possible for artizans and labourers to go there before that hour? Very exaggerated statements were made in the papers last August about the number of persons kept waiting at the gate; and he had, therefore, had a Return prepared on the subject. In August, 45 presented themselves before 2 o'clock; in September, 32; October, 12; November, 4; December, 3; January, (1879), 3; and February, 3; and in March, 4. He had no doubt that a number of nurserymaids would like the arboretum opened in the morning; but as it was planted with the most
  290
  costly shrubs, it would be a sad thing to throw it open merely as a public park, and if it were so thrown open from 25 to 35 additional men would have to be added to the staff. With respect to other places which were public property, the time was limited during which they were open. For instance, the British Museum was open to the general public four days a-week; Windsor Castle, five days; the National Gallery, four days; Hampton Court, five days; South Kensington Museum, the most popular institution in London, was open three days free, on the other days the public had to pay; and the Tower of London, two days; while Kew Gardens were open every day of the week, Sunday included. They were open until dusk, which meant half-past 8 o'clock in summer, and they were closed only on one holiday—namely, Christmas Day. There really was no ground of complaint, for there was no other institution in the country from which the public derived so much advantage, or to which they were so freely admitted as Kew. Persons taking a special interest in botany and horticulture were admitted at 8 o'clock in the morning. The earlier opening of the Gardens to the public would involve considerable expense, and it would also alter the character of the Gardens, and deprive them of the scientific character which it was originally intended they should maintain. In 1840, a Treasury Committee was appointed to report on the condition and management of Kew Gardens in connection with the arrangements made as to the Civil List in 1838. The result was, the botanical gardens, the pleasure-grounds, and the deer park were transferred from the Lord Chamberlain's Department to the Woods and Forests, and the botanical gardens were given by the Queen to the nation for scientific purposes, for the culture of plants from all parts of the world, for the instruction of the public, for the propagation of useful plants for distribution to India and the Colonies, and for furnishing the Government with general information on such subjects. In 1841, Sir William Hooker was appointed Director, and was furnished with a copy of the Report for his guidance. The arboretum was maintained at the cost of the Civil List up to 1846, and then was given up to the public in the same way, and on the same condi-

  291
  tions, as the botanical gardens. The Gardens were really never intended to be a recreation ground like Hyde Park. He had given his own reasons for thinking so, and he should like to quote a few words from what had been written by Sir Joseph Hooker, when asked for his opinion in reference to this Motion. He said—
  "It further follows that the opening of the Garden and grounds to the general public throughout the day would be to assimilate them to the Metropolitan Parks; it would deprive teachers, students, artists, and scientific visitors, together with the officers of the establishment, of any time for the undisturbed pursuit of their avocations. I have stated that the original objects of the institution were purely scientific, utilitarian, and instructional, and that to these has been superadded the recreation of the general public; but it must be recollected that when the arrangements for the latter were sanctioned it was under the distinct understanding that they were to be carried out only so far as this could be done without prejudice to the original objects of the institution—that is to say, without detriment to the collections, without interference with the claims and privileges of those whose pursuits would be interrupted by the admission of the general public. It would be superfluous to dwell upon the grievance which earlier opening would be to teachers, students, artists, and gardeners, and others who are now admitted in the forenoon. If public hours are extended to the forenoon, I have no hope of maintaining the collections and grounds in any but a most unsatisfactory condition. With dispirited and hampered workmen the whole will fall off, Kew will lose its character for ornament as well as for utility, and the public will be profoundly dissatisfied. The Kew Arboretum, though still in its infancy, is the finest in the world; its formation has cost a quarter of a century of assiduous labour and scientific knowledge and zeal. If the completion of this noble national project is to be carried out, those intrusted with its management must have the morning hours uninterfered with by visitors. If, on the other hand, it is thought advisable to make the arboretum available for the day's-long recreation of pleasure parties from the Metropolis, I should advise its abandonment as a scientific or utilitarian department."
  These views of the Director were concurred in by a great number of hon. Gentlemen who had studied the question, and he was sure they were endorsed by almost all botanists and people who took an interest in horticulture. He had received deputations on the subject, and also memorials signed by 500 of the most eminent botanists in the country and abroad, who one and all urged the Government not to assent to this proposal. One of these Memorials, signed by Fellows of the Royal Horticultural Society, the
  292
  Geographical Society, and the Royal Society, was as follows:—
  "We, the undersigned persons, who are well acquainted with the details of horticultural operations and the conditions under which large botanical establishments can be successfully managed, desire to express an opinion that the Royal Gardens of Kew could not be maintained at their present state of efficiency, which we believe to be entirely unique, if the public are allowed unrestricted access to them from early morning till dusk, and the staff have no period in the day when work can be carried on unimpeded by the presence of visitors. We further desire to express our opinion that the indiscriminate admission of the public would, by necessitating the abolition of all special privileges for the study and examination of the collections during the morning, inflict a serious injury on a large class in whose interests, as well as in those of the public at large, the Royal Gardens were made a public establishment. The presence of crowds of visitors is incompatible with the work of the scientific staff. This work is carried on from morning till noon, and it requires not only activity but organization to complete it within the time available. From the hour at which the general public is admitted serious work becomes impossible."
  It had been said that at one time, under the late direction, Kew Gardens were opened at 10 o'clock; but that was when Kew Gardens consisted only of 11 instead of 300 acres, before there were railroads to Kew, and when people went in tens instead of thousands. Yet, even under these circumstances, the late Director found the practice so inconvenient, and so destructive of the objects of the institution, that he was compelled to withdraw the privilege in 1846. If it could not be continued then, how was it possible it could be granted now? No doubt, a great number of Petitions had been presented in favour of this proposal; but it was easy, with proper organization, to get signatures to such Petitions. The British public was only too glad to write its name anywhere, especially where no liability was connected with the act. The hon. Baronet spoke of a "movement" in support of his proposals. The fact was, the agitation was a purely local one, got up by the people in the neighbourhood, who had entered into building speculations, built villas and large public-houses, and they knew that if Kew Gardens were opened all day the value of their property would be immensely advanced. But what the Government had to consider was the interests, not of the builders, but of the public. There was no one who was more anxious to make Kew

  293
  useful and enjoyable than Sir Joseph Hooker; but he wished, also, that it should continue to fulfil the purpose for which it was established as a scientific institution; and he was naturally anxious that, after he had laboured 25 years there, and the Gardens had earned such distinction and admiration, the labour of his life should not be thrown away. No doubt, the Motion was brought forward with the best intentions, but it would be disastrous to the best interests of the Gardens; and he therefore hoped the House would support him in opposing the Motion.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he was greatly disappointed with the answer of the Chief Commissioner. It seemed trilling with the House to tell them that to allow people to walk about the arboretum before 2 o'clock would injure the trees. The Gardens might be divided into two portions, and that which was purely botanical could be closed while the rest was open, and three or four policemen would afford complete protection to the arboretum in the early part of the day. Some prejudice was introduced by speaking of this as a local agitation; he had no local interest in it, and he felt that it was no argument at all to say that local residents, who did nothing wrong by living at Kew, should be denied a privilege because it would improve the value of their property. Such a plea was equally frivolous and ungenerous. There was no case in which any injury had been done to a public institution that had been thrown open freely. His own belief was that the more recreation which was provided for the people, the less would be the pressure of that tide of democracy which some hon. Gentlemen appeared so much to fear. The argument of the Chief Commissioner of Works was inconsistent, for he said that nobody went when the Gardens had been thrown open at 10 o'clock. There was, therefore, no danger of any injury being done. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would review his decision.
  MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHURsupported the Motion. Other gardens of a similar nature were thrown open to the public, and the same might very well be done at Kew. It was a poor compliment to the people of the Metropolis to say that they could not be trusted in these Gardens a few extra
  294
  hours every day. The compromise proposed by the hon. Member might very safely be entertained.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYalso supported the Motion. He suggested that if the number of visitors prevented operations in the arboretum, the gardeners might very well begin their work earlier than 10 o'clock. London was the only great town in Europe that did not give its gardens the whole day to the public. The allegation of increased expenditure, which, it was said, would result from adopting the proposal now before the House, rested solely upon the ipse dixit of Sir Joseph Hooker.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the subject was one of general, and not of merely local, interest. No evidence whatever had been adduced to show that scientific research would in any way be interfered with. He had carefully considered the subject, and he had come to the conclusion that if the Gardens were opened at 10 o'clock, with the reservations which his hon. Friend (Sir Trevor Lawrence) proposed, there would not be the slightest interference with scientific research or scientific pursuits. The First Commissioner of Works had spoken as if a crowd of filthy children and loose women was certain to be found at the gates at half-past 9 in the morning, waiting anxiously for 10 o'clock, in order to rush in and knock over the whole scientific collection. They were told that a Memorial against the proposal had been signed by 500 scientific men. He had great respect for the claims of science, but he could not help remembering there was such a thing as scientific enthusiasm. He had some experience of scientific Memorials, and he knew that when one or two eminent signatures were obtained it was very easy to get a number of others to follow. Experience in other places afforded them no reason to suppose that any harm would be done by admitting the public to the Gardens. The filthy children and the women of low character were simply paraded for the purpose of frightening two classes—the scientific men, and the economists who objected to increased expenditure. The First Commissioner of Works, when speaking of the great expense that would be incurred by the proposed change, almost in the same breath emphasized the fact that the early visitors would probably be very

  295
  few; so, from the right hon. Gentleman's own point of view, the argument from expense was inadmissible. As for the arboretum, Sir Joseph Hooker's communication was an admirable argument for shutting it up altogether. The truth was that it was simply a question of expense; but the increased outlay would be so small as to be hardly worth the consideration of the House.
  MR. A. MILLSpointed out that it was evident, from the experiment that had been already tried on a Bank holiday, that a very small proportion of the class which it was sought to benefit were likely to avail themselves of the opportunity afforded. Of 58,000 Bank holiday visitors on a recent occasion, no fewer than 54,000 entered the Gardens after 2 o'clock. It was, therefore, a delusion to suppose that to open the Gardens early would be to confer a boon on any considerable number of persons. After all, the question was, as a matter of fact, a conflict between botanical science and the owners of villas at Kew and the neighbourhood, and the House would have to decide whether the Gardens were to be kept up in such a way as to reflect credit on the directors and on the nation.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, that when such a question as the Repeal of the Test Acts was agitated, the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) presented Memorials and attached great importance to the signature of Professors, while on the present occasion he laughed at the Memorial of 500 men of science, and asked the House to give it no consideration. Now, as it was admitted on all hands that the early visitors to the Gardens would not be very numerous, the question narrowed itself to this—whether the convenience of the inhabitants of Kew outweighed the disadvantages of the proposed change? He would remind the House how high was the character of Kew Gardens, and how deserved was the great reputation of the scientific staff there employed. The Gardens were celebrated for the great amount of scientific research that had emanated from them, which scientific research had made them the admiration of the world. He believed that the volumes which had issued from the Kew Gardens considerably exceeded 100 in number. The hon. Gentleman who proposed the Motion asked the aid of
  296
  Scotch and Irish Members, because their gardens were open at other hours. Had the hon. Gentleman ever been to the Botanical Gardens, Edinburgh, as he (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had been, he would find students studying there in the morning; but he would not meet any of the general public, unless accidentally one or two ladies using the Gardens for walking. The people who went there early were University students of Edinburgh, whose object was study. The supporters of the Motion had dealt somewhat unfairly with what had fallen from the First Commissioner of Works with regard to expense; for the point of the right hon. Gentleman's argument was that after the admission of the public the gardeners ceased to be gardeners and became watchmen, thus necessitating an increase of the permanent staff. They were hardly justified in making the change for the convenience of a few of the Kew residents; though he considered it might be practicable to open the Gardens at 12 instead of 1, an hour sufficiently early for visitors from London.
  MR. CUBITTthought that if the Gardens could be opened early on each Monday during the summer months, at the time the excursions trains were running, it would satisfy the desire of the working classes, and would not interfere with the work of the scientific staff. If the right hon. Gentleman could not hold out any such prospect, he should vote for the Motion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the interests of the taxpayer in this matter ought not to be overlooked. The House ought to consider what it was that the money was voted for. It was not to maintain Kew Gardens as a park; if that were so, he should be glad to give every facility to the public. The object was to maintain Kew as a scientific establishment—and men of science engaged in the administration, and other scientific men who knew what the administration ought to be, said that the scientific object would be considerably frustrated if the students did not have the Gardens to themselves for half the day. He thought they were bound to pay due deference to such an opinion. Believing that the money was not given solely that beautiful gardens might be provided for the public, he much regretted that he could not support the Amendment.
  SIR HENRY PEEKsaid, the reason why so small a number entered the Gardens before 1 o'clock on former occasions was because it was not generally known that they were opened. He thought that if his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner would assent to the opening of the Gardens on Mondays as on Bank holidays, he would, to a great extent, meet the wishes of those who were in favour of the Motion.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 94: Majority 102.—(Div. List, No. 36.)

  MERCANTILE MARINE—BREACH OF CONTRACT BY SEAMEN.—LEGISLATION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GORST, in calling attention to the present state of the Law by which seamen who have entered into a contract of service are liable before joining their ship to be arrested without warrant and imprisoned with hard labour for simple breach of such contract, and to the pledge given by Her Majesty's Government in relation thereto, said, that as the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had intimated his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject, he did not intend to proceed with what he had to say on it; but he desired publicly to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the repeated pledges which they had given to the House and the country on this subject. In 1875, a Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Bill dealing with this question was passed through Committee, but eventually withdrawn; while in the following year a most distinct pledge was given on the subject. When the Bill of 1875 was before the House, he moved an Amendment which found a very considerable amount of favour in the House, and which would have had the effect of remedying the evil of which he complained. He withdrew that Amendment on a distinct pledge being given by the Home Secretary that the whole subject would receive the attention of the Government in the next Session. Last year, however, at the beginning of the Session, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. The Earl of Beaconsfield used to say that a Select Committee was an electorate piece of machinery for discovering something that everybody knew. The Select
  298
  Committee of last Session fully bore out that description, and it was simply a very convenient mode of shelving the question. The noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had stated that a Bill was now prepared which would satisfy all parties; and his object in calling attention to the matter was to urge her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill as early as possible, and make an effort to legislate on the subject this Session. It might be said that it was an inconvenient thing to bring the matter forward upon a Motion for going into Committee of Supply; but this was a question of great importance to merchant seamen, who were not possessed of many electoral privileges, and whose interests, therefore, required to be brought prominently forward in order to insure attention.
  MR. BURTagreed that seamen had only a small amount of electoral power, and, unlike many other classes of working people, were so circumstanced that they had not any very powerful trade organization, and were, therefore, very much at the mercy of the Government. He trusted that their weakness would make their claim all the greater, and he earnestly hoped that the Government would speedily introduce the promised Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was not from any want of interest in the subject that the Bill had not been introduced already. The truth was that his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon), when he went to the Board of Trade last Session, found the Bill under the consideration of the Committee. He had not previously paid any special attention to the subject, and he found it to be one of very considerable difficulty and complexity. He therefore felt it desirable to take some time to consider it, and the matter stood over for that purpose. He had now given a great deal of consideration to the subject, and was anxious to make a statement, and to bring forward a Bill. It would not be fair on the part of his noble Friend's Colleagues to forestall anything he had to say on the subject, and therefore he would confine himself to assuring his hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite that he should be exceedingly glad so to arrange the Business as to give an early day for the consideration of the Bill; but he did not know that he

  299
  should be able to do so immediately, as there was a great deal of Business requiring attention. As soon as he could arrange a day, he would take care that an opportunity was afforded of introducing the Bill.

  IRELAND—DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY, who had given Notice of his intention to move—
  "That the system of limiting the number of Ministers entrusted with the direction of Irish Departments and sitting in this House to one, namely, the Chief Secretary of the Lord-Lieutenant, is productive of abuse and neglect in the Government and Administration of Ireland, and requires to be altered;"
  said, that as the Rules of the House would preclude him from moving his Resolution, he should content himself with a few general observations. The subject was one which had long attracted the notice of his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Butt), whose absence, and the cause of it, was a source of so much regret, not only to Irish Members, but to all Parties in the House. He might first say that his Motion did not involve any personal reflection on the conduct or administration of either the present Chief Secretary or his Predecessor. It was very hard to fix on any very continuous or aggravated abuse, which, as a rule, was the fault of the system and not of the men, and it was the system which he proposed to discuss. It might be suggested that, in addition to the Chief Secretary, there were the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, but these officers had cut-and-dry functions of their own; they had really to put the Criminal Law into operation, and if other work was thrown on their shoulders it was such that in England would be placed in the hands of some Minister representing a Department. That itself was an abuse. Besides, the Office of Attorney General in Ireland at the present day was not as important as it was 20 or 30 years ago, when juries had no difficulty in bringing in a conviction in every case which came before them, and the Attorney General was a much more active official than now. In addition, the House should remember that it was not always the Attorney General or Solicitor General could get a seat in Ireland. In England they had represented, the Home Office, including all the va-
  300
  rious duties it managed; the Local Government Board was represented, with the Poor Laws, the Laws of Health, and the various other matters connected with that branch of the Administration. Then they had got the Vice President of the Council sitting in the House, responsible for the large interests coining under the head of Education; and whenever any other matter of great domestic importance arose the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and sometimes the Leader of the Government, were there to direct it, and avow themselves directly responsible over the head of the subordinate officers. In Ireland all these duties devolved on the Chief Secretary, who was responsible for the Local Government Board, for the large and complicated system of Irish Education, and assumed the proportions of Minister of War when he came to answer for that military organization which went under the name of Constabulary. But that was not all. In England there were local institutions regulating to a large extent these matters, and elected bodies exercising control over the policy of the country, while there was nothing of the kind in Ireland. For instance, the Constabulary, with its military discipline, was altogether subject to the discretion and judgment of one man in Dublin—the Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Of course, the Chief Secretary was prepared at 48 hours' notice to answer any question that was put to him with regard to that Force; but he had to telegraph over to the Sir John Wood or the Colonel Hillier of the day, and then he entered the House, and repeated his information as if he were a responsible Minister. The real dictator was a man sitting in a pleasant house in the Phœnix Park; and that was the manner in which the Irish people were supposed to be represented in the House for the administration of that Force. The result was that the Force had become more and more military, and the leading Irish papers were for six months in the year deluged with letters of complaint from discontented constables. Instead of bringing their ingenuity to bear on the catching of thieves, they were compelled to learn all sorts of books of discipline. That was not all. Within the last six months there had been four or five transactions connected with their officers which were nothing less than

  301
  scandal, and which, if they had taken place in England, would have led to a summary and complete change in the system of managing the Constabulary. If a charge against the management of the Constabulary had taken place in the House the Minister would answer the question in a cut-and-dry form, for it would be impossible for him to concentrate his attention on the great matter on which he was questioned; and whether he was an active or inactive, an honest or dishonest official, he could not deal with these scandals. For many years one of those officials had been pocketing the public money—whether by intentional fraud or by mistake he would not say—but if the persons into whose hands the public money passed felt that there was a responsible Minister sitting in the House directing that large establishment, and not having his attention diffused over a thousand other things, he doubted whether it would be possible for the spirit of red tape to allow such occurrences in Ireland. In a county in the West two constables, for whom the right hon. Gentleman was directly responsible, had devoted themselves for weeks to irritating the feelings of the great majority of the people; but the matter only could become a squabble in the newspapers between the Lord Lieutenant and the Bishop of the Diocese, for there was no use in coming to the Chief Secretary about it. It was virtually by fighting out squabbles in the papers that the people of Ireland were bound to supplement this system of irresponsibility. Then turn to the Education Board. In Ireland the onus of explaining in the House the difficulties of Irish Education lay in the hands of an official, who was responsible for the Constabulary, the Poor Law Boards, and, in addition to other duties, had the responsibilities of the cesspools of the country being cleaned. He was the man that had to explain how the middle schools, which were useless to the great mass of the people, could be made useful to them. It was needless to say, under these circumstances, that the control was left in the hands of officials in Dublin, willing, no doubt, to do what they could, but utterly unable to go beyond the regulations, or to suggest any broad lines of policy for the improvement of the system which they administered. If there was a man capable
  302
  of devoting his attention to the transactions of the National Board, and fully responsible for them, could it be supposed that the National teachers would so long have had to complain of their miserable pay? Then there was another tremendous Department called the Board of Works; but the abuses and mismanagements of that Board had been so threshed out, that he would only point it out as an instance of the want of direct responsibility in that House. The result of it all was that there was a nominal Parliamentary Government, but it was really administered by a bureaucracy. He might cite the case of the outrage on the people in the Phœnix Park. It was impossible to fix the charge on the officials, so many of them were mixed up in the affair. The red-tape system was so complicated that it was impossible to trace the transaction to its real source; the blame was shifted from one shoulder to another, and the wrong remained unredressed up to this very day. There was a Privy Council managing the executive of the country, and it comprised Attorney Generals and Judges, and men whose office he would not say was interfered with, but whose dignity and impartiality were put in doubt by their being compelled to descend from the Bench to take on themselves duties which ought to be discharged by Ministers in that House. The result was that in Ireland the office of Judge did not carry with it the assumed sacred belief in its impartiality which it did in England. What would be said if these were responsible Ministers in Belgium or Holland? Ireland was the only nation in which the sham of Parliamentary government, leaving the entire responsibility in the hands of one man, was carried out. O'Connell had an expression, which he applied indiscriminately to Chief Secretaries for Ireland. He called them "shave-beggars." He meant, that in the same way as barbers were accustomed to employ untried apprentices to shave poor people for nothing in order to get their hands in, gentlemen were sent over to Ireland who had no experience, but who showed signs of smartness, and who were in all respects apprentices, to operate on the Irish people for £4,000 a-year until they showed themselves fitted for better purposes. If the Chief Secretary showed that he was able to

  303
  do the work and to be of great service to the country he was, as a rule, removed to another and more important Office. If, on the other hand, he proved incompetent and left everything to his subordinates, he was allowed to retain his Office. He wished the House to understand clearly that in saying this he was in no way referring personally to the present holder of the Office. The only personal matter to which he should allude was the vast amount of relief which was felt by the official classes in Ireland when the last Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was removed. Among other good qualities, that right hon. Gentleman had a keen eye for sloth and jobbery and arrogance among officials, and, to use a familiar phrase, he "bowled them over" whenever and wherever discovered. He only mentioned this to show what was the state of things to which those gentlemen were accustomed. It would take a Hercules of labour and ingenuity to cleanse this Augean stable, and perhaps only one man in a thousand would attempt to cope with the difficulties which presented themselves. The real cause of all the existing abuse was that the Government were trying to do in that House a thing which was utterly impossible—namely, to carry on in that Assembly two perfectly different systems of administration. In England public opinion interfered to prevent abuses; but in Ireland, under the present system of managing things by correspondence with officials over in Dublin, there was no public opinion to rectify these matters. Public opinion would not arise and make itself felt unless there was something to be got by its activity, and the present system of Parliamentary government for Ireland prevented the exercise there of public opinion on the administration of the country. The ultimate remedy would be to hand over to an Irish Assembly the management of purely Irish affairs—a proposal which was not so revolutionary as some appeared to think. This would not be done at once, but it was daily becoming more and more apparent to the English people that the claims of Ireland to wise and prudent management should be granted, and he hoped the fact would soon be accepted by the House. In the meantime it was the duty of Irish Members to diminish as much as possible the
  304
  abuses which prevailed under the present system in the administration of the country. They would fail to-night, as they had failed many times before, but they would at least show the people of England the necessity of a change in the administration. The only duty they could discharge was to awaken English public opinion to the extraordinary and unconstitutional principles on which Irish affairs were managed, and they felt that transcended any duty to the Empire which could possibly be open to them. He saw that nothing could be carried by assault in that House; but they meant to surround the Irish Administration and the system of Irish government by an effective blockade, and when they met with any abuse would make prisoner of the offender and try him by court martial in that House. As long as the affairs of Ireland were governed by the English House of Commons, they would do their best to put an end to the fiction of Parliamentary government which at present ruled over Ireland.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had called the attention of the House to what he considered to be grievances in Ireland, and he had stated what he thought would be remedies for them; but he (Mr. J. Lowther) would not follow him through all his suggestions, some of which would no doubt have an opportunity of being discussed upon some occasion when they could be more legitimately considered than would be the case at that moment; and he, therefore, would confine himself to the specific point which was contained in the Motion of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given Notice. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the fact that the holder of the Office which he (Mr. J. Lowther) had the honour to fill was the solitary Representative of the Irish Government in that House, and he had expressed an opinion that there ought to be a Minister of Irish Education, a President of the Irish Local Government Board, and an Irish Home Secretary, and that various other officials should be appointed.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYexplained that he meant that the Chief Secretary could discharge the duties of Home Secretary for Ireland.
  MR J. LOWTHER: Well, that was a matter of detail. What was meant

  305
  was that, in the event of questions arising which called for the attention of Parliament, it should be within the power of the Minister in charge of the Department more rapidly to master the subject and to give information to the House in regard to it. The reasons which the hon. and learned Member adduced must, he thought, have struck the House as telling heavily against his argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that under the present system everything was left to bureaucracy, and he complained that there was great inconvenience in not having some person responsible in connection with any subject on which an inquiry might be necessary; but anyone occupying the position which he (Mr. J. Lowther) had the honour to fill, was responsible to the House of Commons for all the Departments under his charge. Under the system which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed, there would be an inevitable increase of circumlocution which must aggravate instead of diminish the evils complained of. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the difficulty which the Chief Secretary had in making himself acquainted with the details of his Department consisted in the fact that, whereas the English Minister had his office in Whitehall, and could easily refer to his subordinate officials, the Chief Secretary had to have recourse to the telegraph, or obtain his information by letter, which might cause a delay of some days. But he would like to know how, by a multiplication of official Representatives in that House of the Irish Government, the difficulties of time and space could be remedied. The hon. and learned Gentleman also said that not only was it necessary that the office of each of these numerous Irish Ministers should be at Whitehall, but that it was necessary that an intelligent public opinion should be formed and cultivated in Ireland. He did not undertake to say what great prodigies might not be achieved by a multiplication of half-a-dozen editions of himself; but the formation of an intelligent public opinion was a feat which, he feared, would require a great many persons of far greater intelligence and ability than any to which he could presume to aspire. The hon. and learned Member held out may temptations to others to share in the duties of the Irish Government, and he spoke
  306
  of a blockade with a view to waylay every Representative of the Government of Ireland. [Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: No; to catch every abuse, and bring it before the House of Commons.] He thought the blockade was to be of a more practical character. The hon. and learned Member had, he thought, failed to show that mere multiplication of Representatives of the Irish Government would achieve the results of which he spoke. There was one part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, however, which he confessed he viewed with different feelings from the rest, and that was the part in which he drew a distinction between the Department of Finance and the other Departments of the Irish Government. He thought there was a great deal to be said upon that head, as he had felt it himself by no means an agreeable task to be called upon to explain or defend a policy for which he was not responsible. For all the other Departments the Chief Secretary was responsible, but as to financial matters, those were under the control of the Treasury in London, and for them he was not responsible; and therefore he was disposed to agree that it might be considered how far an official Representative of the Irish Department of the Treasury should sit upon the Government Bench, and be charged with the duty of explaining and defending financial matters. He could promise that that was a subject to which attention should be given. With regard to the other Departments, he could only say that so long as he had to discharge the duties of the Irish Government he would endeavour to discharge those savoury and agreeable duties of cleansing the Augean stables to the best of his power. He knew that his right hon. Friend who preceded him (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had endeavoured to check abuses, although he probably had, like himself, heard that night for the first time of the supposed individual short-comings to which reference had been made, and, without holding out a hope of anything heroic as the result of his own exertions, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would be his endeavour to eliminate from the Public Service any abuses which might be proved to exist.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he must thank his hon. and learned Friend

  307
  (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) for the very able address which he had delivered. The review which had been given of Irish administration and Irish government was highly valuable. Irish Members often found that when Select Committees made recommendations which related to England and Ireland, the latter country was sure to be last thought of by the Government. That was shown by the Question which he had put to the Chief Secretary that evening in reference to the administration of the Poor Law. Only last year a Committee made certain recommendations as to the election of Poor Law Guardians in England and Ireland, and while the President of the Local Government Board was preparing a Bill to carry out the recommendations made in this country, they could not even obtain a promise from the Chief Secretary that a similar Bill would be applied to Ireland. It was clear that the Chief Secretary had at present too much work to do to do it well, and the experience of the right hon Gentleman, and of his Predecessor, could not but point in this direction—that there must be some division of labour.
  MR. MELDONsaid, they did not at all find fault with the present Chief Secretary for want of ability or of anxiety to show that ability; but they did blame him for neglecting the work which had been begun by his Predecessor. He could only come to the conclusion that the Government had recently come to the deliberately-formed intention of changing their policy with regard to Ireland. Nobody could doubt that the present Chief Secretary was a man not only of great ability but of great industry, and yet the work of his Predecessor had not been carried on. The right hon. Baronet the late Chief Secretary had worked hard in respect of matters as to which reform was needed. He had devoted much attention to the amendment of the Poor Law, and also to the subject of Intermediate Education. The Bill in reference to that important subject, which was conceived in a spirit of conciliation towards the Irish people, was carried after the right hon. Baronet had been appointed to his present Office, but to him the credit attaching to it was due. He challenged the present Chief Secretary to point to a single attempt which had since been made to remedy
  308
  the grievances of which the Irish people complained. The Cabinet had suddenly changed from a conciliatory to an exasperating policy towards Ireland; and the result was that, during the last 12 months, nothing had been done to redress a number of grievances which had been brought under the notice of the Government. A deputation had asked the Chief Secretary to consider the state of Dublin, but he said that he could not give any special attention to the matter. The position of the Board of Works and the National teachers had not been improved, though as to the latter, moneys had been voted by Parliament for the purpose. There must have been incapacity or negligence in those officials who ought to have carried out the wishes of Parliament. Certain inquiries had been promised in regard to the Irish Local Government Board and the election of Poor Law Guardians, but nothing had been done. Surely Ireland demanded some attention to her affairs. And not only were Irish affairs in the hands of a Minister who dealt with them in a light and airy manner, and who was either unable or unwilling to communicate any real information to the House, or to say anything substantial, but speeches had been made by the supporters of the Cabinet with regard to Irish matters which were exceedingly irritating, and which would never have have been delivered if they had not had the sanction of the Government. Those speeches had never been repudiated from the Treasury Bench; on the contrary, some of the occupants of that Bench had gone out of their way to compliment the authors of that class of addresses to which he alluded. The fact was that, for some reason or other, the Government appeared to be determined to go back to the old policy of governing Ireland by underlings and officials who were not responsible in any way to the House of Commons. The last Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), who was now Secretary of State for the Colonies, had not only encroached upon, but almost put an end to, that pernicious system. Whether the right hon. Baronet had been promoted on account of the representations of certain officials in Ireland, or whether the Government here thought his policy of conciliation unwise, he was not prepared to say; but the change which had marked his

  309
  retirement from the Office of Chief Secretary made some explanation desirable.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, he agreed generally with the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon). He (Major Nolan) did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who was not a responsible officer, for not bringing in and carrying Bills for the benefit of Ireland, but he could raise objections and disagreeable obstacles, or smooth them away. The present Chief Secretary had not done anything of that kind to prevent Irish Members from bringing forward Business. He had no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman in that respect, nor did he suppose that he was hostile in any way to the Irish Representatives in that House. But he certainly thought that the Cabinet had shown itself, during the last month or five weeks, hostile to Ireland by the change of policy that had taken place. Why there should have been such a sudden display of hostility to Ireland he was at a loss to conceive. He could only suppose that they had renounced the idea of earning Irish gratitude by granting to Ireland the modicum of justice which they but lately seemed to contemplate, and that they did not now think it worth while to take any trouble to please Ireland.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he regretted that the Rules of the House would prevent the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) from being put at the present time. His hon. and learned Friend had not brought it forward as a specific for remedying Irish grievances and for the removal of those radical evils which existed, but to represent to the House those inequalities which were to be found in Ireland; and so far he was willing to support him. There was an undoubted neglect of Ireland on the part of the Government, and one of the causes of that neglect must be that those who were responsible for Irish affairs had not urged with sufficient weight and influence the necessity of attending to those questions. If, besides the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, there were several Ministers responsible for, and thoroughly acquainted with, the different Irish Departments, and acquainted with them to an extent which the right hon. Gentleman could not be, hon. Members might
  310
  hope to find those Ministers pressing upon the Cabinet and upon the Leader of the House the necessity of doing something in the direction of remedying Irish grievances. At the present time there was only one responsible Minister, who could not be expected to be thoroughly conversant with all those matters; and Irish Members were treated as if their grievances, as if, indeed, their country itself, had no existence. If for only one reason, he would like this Motion to pass, and that was that among the half-dozen Irish officials then having seats in the House, there might have been one amongst the number who might have some sense of the responsibility of his position, and the magnitude of the issues with which he had to deal. It had made a painful impression upon him, and, no doubt, an equally painful impression upon everybody who wished to see the relations between this country and Ireland improved, to see the attitude and bearing of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland when he got upto answer this Motion. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had no sense of the responsibility of his position, or of the serious importance of the Motion which had been presented with so much ability. He did not wish to charge the right hon. Gentleman with any levity of behaviour in the House or out of it; but he could not help contrasting his attitude and bearing and the tone of his speech with the attitude and bearing which they might have expected under similar circumstances from a former Chief Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Baronet had now the affairs of the Colonies in his hands. When that right hon. Gentleman was Chief Secretary, he (Mr. Parnell) did not hesitate to criticize his conduct severely whenever he thought it necessary to do so; but, at the same time, Irish Members always received from him the attention and painstaking interest which sometimes convinced opponents that they were trying to meet them, although they might fail to convince them that they were wrong; but the way in which Irish questions had been treated since the advent of the right hon. Gentleman was almost enough to make Irish Members despair of doing any good by the ordinary operations of Parliamentary action. He did not think the hon. and learned Member for Limerick intended

  311
  to say that public opinion in Ireland was dead, but rather public opinion in Ireland despaired of having the effect which it had in every other country where there was a Constitutional Government. When public opinion was evidenced in the ordinary ways—through the Press, public meetings, Petitions to Parliament, and even by the return of a majority of Members to the House, pledged to a given line of action—these indications of public opinion were entirely disregarded by the ruling powers; and, consequently, people in Ireland said—"What is the use of adopting the ordinary Constitutional methods open to us of explaining our grievances, and bringing them before the authorities, when all our exertions, no matter how persistent or energetic, are entirely thrown away?" Therefore, he maintained that, although public opinion in Ireland was not non-existent, it was undoubtedly dormant and despairing of good effect. He thought it would be a most desirable thing if this House were to show that it was not insensible to the public opinion of Ireland—if they showed that they valued Irish public opinion in the same way that they showed they valued English public opinion. He believed that the change would be a most beneficial one, and they would have that public opinion exercised and made use of in a Constitutional way, and a way that would be of advantage to the mutual relations of both countries. But, as things at present stood, there was no inducement to anybody in Ireland to approach this House with any idea that they were going to derive any benefit from any trouble they might take in making themselves heard and felt in the Constitutional way. They had a great number of boards in Ireland. It had been a favourite saying in this House that Ireland was the most "be-boarded" country in existence. For every Department there was a board, and every Bill that was brought in constituted a fresh board. The Intermediate Education Bill of last year established a fresh board. In England they had a Minister responsible for Education; but that was not so in Ireland, and the only chance there was that the intention of Parliament would not be perverted depended upon the operation of its instructions. They had a Board of Works which fulfilled its functions most imperfectly.
  312
  The Report of the Royal Commission, on which the hon. and gallant Member for Galway had a seat, distinctly condemned the Board as an obstructive institution. The character of the Board was condemned as having obstructed Public Works in Ireland, and the Commissioners said that all great questions of benefit and improvement in Ireland had been entirely neglected, mentioning particularly the drainage of the Shannon, the important artery through the country; and they found that a whole Session had passed, and the Government had deliberated for a whole year, and the Irish Minister, the Chief Secretary, made no move and took no steps to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. An example came under his notice recently in his own immediate neighbourhood, and in which he felt a special interest. A harbour, which had been visited by the Lord Lieutenant, was very much in need of improvement, and where the expenditure of very little money would produce most important results; but all improvement had been obstructed by the Board. When the Chief Secretary was applied to, he said he knew nothing about it—that it was in the Department of the Treasury; and when the Treasury officers were applied to, they referred the matter back to the Board of Works. So the thing was tossed from one to another, and there was a regular species of political battledore and shuttlecock. In the meantime, the fishermen's families were starving, and every now and then a horrible wreck occurred through boats crossing the bar in the attempts of the fishermen to earn a livelihood. Then, as to the Constabulary. If they had a Minister responsible for that body, they would soon succeed in abolishing both the Minister and the Constabulary. Everybody must condemn the maintenance of an armed Force, armed with weapons of precision—breech-loaders; he was not sure whether they had yet got so far as to the Martini-Henry, but with sword bayonets and all equipments necessary to take the field, except heavy artillery, which he had no doubt they could borrow if necessary. Such a Force was a contravention of the Mutiny Act, and against all Constitutional precedent, and yet money was voted for it by this House year after year, under the pretext that the people of Ireland were dis-

  313
  orderly—that they required 15,000 armed and drilled soldiers to keep them in order. If the House would only reflect for a moment on the position of Irish Members, they would see that they came over to England, many of them at great personal inconvenience, neglecting their own private interests, and leaving their homes, their friends, and incurring considerable expense, and they felt it to be a great hardship when they saw so fair a case as had been presented by the hon. and learned Member to-night met in the light and disdainful way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary had met it. It made them feel almost exasperated with the conduct of the Government. Irish Members could not but feel exasperated at the way in which such questions were treated, and he really did not know what they should do in future. At the next General Election they would be obliged to admit to their constituents that they were entirely useless, and that they might as well not send any Representatives. But, however that might be, in the interval that remained between this and the General Election, he thought, perhaps, it was their duty to persevere in the discouraging work they had undertaken—to do what they could to incline the ear of the House to a consideration of the justice of their demands. He admitted that prospect was not a bright one. Unless public opinion in this country were acted upon in some very special and unforeseen way—in some way which was not at all likely to occur—they could not hope for any change in the minds of the Government. They were told that the Boers of the Transvaal were seeking their independence, because the British power was menaced in that country, and were about to convene their own Assembly, and take advantage of the feature in England's government of her Dependencies, which had always been manifested since the declaration of Irish Independence in 1782—that the difficulty of England was the opportunity of the Dependency; and the Boers were pressing upon England the necessity of returning to them the independence of which they were deprived by England some years ago. He did not suppose that any such course would help them in Ireland. He did not hope it should so help them, because he supposed it would not be right for
  314
  him to have any such hope. But, looking to the condition of the country, and the power of England, he did not see any fear of England being mixed up at home as she was with the Zulus in South Africa. He, therefore, did not see any chance of directing the attention of the governing classes to the redressing of grievances in the same way as the Boers were directing the attention of the Government to the necessity of doing them justice. However, he believed they ought to do all they could in pressing that question on the Ministers of the day, and on the necessity of doing something. At all events, they were calling attention to the Irish grievances that existed in a way that was not unconstitutional, and could not be found fault with, and in doing that they were doing all they could.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, the Chief Secretary had treated this subject as pleasantly and amiably as he usually treated most subjects that were brought before him. They did not complain of his good humour, his personal amiability, or his courtesy; but of the inactivity, lethargy, and fatal torpor which, in obedience to some word of command, had recently come over the Government policy in Ireland. But they would not allow the good humour of the Chief Secretary to banter away the seriousness of the question which had been raised. He had no doubt whatever that the Chief Secretary would at once bring to bear on Irish affairs enough power if there were not behind him in the mysterious recesses of the Government policy some controlling influence which had told him that nothing further was to be done for Ireland in this Session of Parliament. The Chief Secretary tried to make a pleasant joke of it, and he wondered what prodigies would ensue if there were five or six editions of himself. It was related that the Duke of Wellington was once talking to the King about a new pair of boots, and His Majesty asked—"What are they called?" "They are called Wellingtons," was the answer; and the story went on to say that the Sovereign exclaimed,—"Impossible! there could not be a pair of Wellingtons." And Nature could not possibly produce two Chief Secretaries like the right hon. Gentleman. It simply came to this—Who was the responsible Governor of Ireland? Did they think the

  315
  Lord Lieutenant? Not a bit of it. Nominally and on the floor of this House there was one Minister who was the real Governor of the country—the Chief Secretary for the time being. The Chief Secretary for Ireland governed that whole country; he was the Minister of Commerce, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Justice, the Head of the Board of Works, the Head of the Poor Law system. Now, he would ask the House, given a Kingdom of 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 inhabitants in any part of Europe, how many responsible Ministers would an honest Government consider necessary for the public life of that country? If the Emperor of Russia proposed that there should be only one Minister of Bulgaria, would he not be denounced for having made representative government a farce? Yet, while this country was holding out the pretence of Constitutional government to Ireland, she gave her just one responsible Minister. Did they think the Irish people were going to be always content with a system which mocked, derided, tortured them with the semblance of Constitutional government, while in reality denying it? When their Representatives complained of that state of things, they were told to practise self-reliance; and when they asked for the mechanism appropriate to self-reliance, the answer given them was that they must depend upon England, who would manage their affairs for them better than they could do themselves. This was the question they were raising to-night. They maintained—and it was not a matter for mirth—that they had only one responsible Minister in this House. He happened to be in the Court of Queen's Bench, Dublin, when the Irish Board of Works, through its Head, was brought into the witness box, and they saw what came of having no responsible Minister but one. Each Department had about one-twentieth share of that Minister. They found what a myth, what a sham, what a mere delusion, this Board was. The Head of the Board was in the box, and was being examined about the sittings of the Board, and counsel called for the Minute Book; and it turned out that not a single entry had been made in that book for years and years. And how did the Board transact its business. It consisted of two Members who hardly ever met, but who, in
  316
  fact, attended on and off. Some one of them strolled into the office, read the morning papers, saw the latest news from the club, smoked a cigar, gave orders, wrote a few letters, and went out—and that was a Board meeting. It was probably not known to the Irish Secretary, and yet the Irish Secretary was the only Minister they had in the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I said the Board of Works was not in the Department of the Chief Secretary.
  MR. SULLIVAN: I am sure it is not; but he is the only Minister responsible.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: No, Sir, he is not; the Board of Works is under the Treasury, and not in any way connected with the Chief Secretary's Department.
  MR. SULLIVAN: That only made the matter still worse. He had thought that the right hon. Gentleman gave at least one-twentieth part of his time and attention to the Board of Works, but now it seemed that he gave it none at all, and yet Irish Members were taunted with occupying the House with sentimental grievances. It was most important to the Irish people that that Department should be properly managed, because its functions concerned the development of the material resources of their country. Yet in the whole of Ireland there was no Department that had been so completely "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare" as the Board of Works. But the whole system was so bad, so vicious, so rotten, that the late Government sent over a roving Commission to pry into all those Departments, and a precious discovery they made. It would go down from generation to generation in the hereditary officialism of Ireland how Mr. Herbert Murray was an enemy and a terror to the officials, and was rooting out and disturbing the cobwebs of the Departments. The whole system would not endure 24 hours' genuine daylight if they had a responsible Minister in the House. They were not a Party who were clamouring for the creation of official places, because they were not in favour of buying public men by elevating them to place. They saw on the Government Bench at least one Irish Gentleman (the Attorney General for Ireland) appointed to a Public Office in Ireland, and never was one appointed to a Public Office who commanded more widely the confidence

  317
  of the Irish public than the Attorney General for Ireland. They were not raising this question for the benefit of individuals, but for the benefit of the country. Another thing they had to complain of was the frequency of removal of Irish Secretaries. After the Chief Secretary had been a little while with them and was beginning to have sympathies with the people and the country and to perceive what a noble field there was before him for the exercise of his abilities and his ambition—just as, in fact, he might feel inspired to play in Ireland the part Lord Dufferin had played in Canada, he was removed from his Office and a fresh man was put in his place who had to learn everything from the beginning, and who naturally fell entirely into the hands of his subordinates. That system must be changed if they wished to make Parliamentary and good government a reality in Ireland. At all events, Irish Members had done their duty by calling attention to the subject.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1878–9.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1878–9.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) £3,771, Houses of Parliament.
    (2.) £8,417, Public Buildings.
    MR. DILLWYNobserved, that some explanation ought to be given with regard to this Vote. They were told that the sum of £5,542 was required to defray the expense of repairs on certain public buildings, including works carried out at the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury. Surely it could be foreseen, when the original Estimates were prepared, that those works would be required, and their cost could have been included. The Committee ought to know what change had taken place to render the expenditure necessary. The footnote in the Estimates stated that the money was required for ordinary work and repairs; but why should the cost of that work be greater than usual? Labour and materials were both cheaper, and
    318
    the cost of the work should, therefore, have been less.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that some works had been executed which were not anticipated when the Estimate was framed. In August or September last the First Lord of the Treasury notified his intention to take up his residence at the official mansion in Downing Street, and it was necessary to put it into proper repair. Only a small proportion of the sum of £5,542 was spent upon the residence of the First Lord. In consequence of a fire taking place some repairs were suddenly required at the Colonial Office, and some work was also done at the Home Office. About £400 was spent on the Prisons Department, and £700 had to be laid out at the offices of the Local Government Board.
    MR. DILLWYNobserved, that his point had not been answered—namely, that the work ought to have been cheaper, as labour and materials had fallen in value.
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that no doubt the cost of the work was less in consequence.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the Vote included a sum of £1,196 on account of Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. The buildings at Broadmoor were very unsatisfactory, and occasioned very considerable expenditure from year to year. There was an expectation held out that some change might be made which would relieve the country from the maintenance of those buildings. He would like to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he knew whether any place had been taken in substitution of Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum, or whether anything had been done which would relieve the country from the continually recurring expense on the buildings of that Asylum?
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that a Committee had sat with regard to the question; but, so far as he was aware, no resolution had yet been arrived at. The sum of £1,196 had been required to supply the immediate need for some large tanks in the buildings, and for increasing the supply of gas. The "maintenance" for Broadmoor was only £2,000 per annum. This was found to be insufficient.
    MR. BRISTOWEthought that these heads of the Supplementary Estimates had been rendered necessary by reason

    319
    of a proper survey not having been made. He should have supposed those whose duty it was to survey buildings of this important character would have been able to foresee what would be required in the year. It must be an unsatisfactory kind of survey which could lead to Supplementary Estimates of this amount. It was the duty of the surveyor to examine all the public buildings; and though he knew sufficient of the subject to be aware that accidental circumstances might occasion unforeseen repairs, yet he should like to be satisfied that a sufficient survey was made.
    MR. DILLWYNinquired why the purchase of 20, Great George Street had been brought into the Supplementary Estimates?
    MR. GERARD NOELexplained that the purchase was not completed during the financial year.
    MR. WHITWELLdisagreed with the criticisms on the expenditure at Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. The arrangement of the buildings was bad—nothing could be worse—but the management, and the results of the Asylum, were not unfortunate, but, on the whole, very satisfactory.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £400, Furniture of Public Offices.
    (4.) £724, New Home and Colonial Offices, &c.
    MR. DILLWYNasked whether any further sums would be required in connection with these Offices?
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that this was the last charge.
    MR. ADAMobserved, that the building did not seem to be finished, as two towers were still incomplete.
    MR. GERARD NOELremarked that several plans had been considered, but were not approved of. At present it was not intended to add the cupolas to the building.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) £650, British Museum Buildings.
    MR. WHITWELLwished to be informed whether the experiments in electric lighting at the Library of the British Museum were being made at the expense of the country or of the contractors, and whether the experiments were being conducted with a view to the adoption of the system of electric lighting there?
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, he could not answer the question. The matter was entirely in the hands of the Trustees of the British Museum.
    MR. PARNELLobserved, that part of the Vote was required to defray expenditure in consequence of defective drainage. He would like to know whether steps had been taken to remedy those defects, for, otherwise, the charge might be an annual one?
    MR. GERARD NOELsaid, that in consequence of the outbreak of typhoid fever in the British Museum the drains were examined and put into proper repair.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) £12,800, Natural History Museum.
    MR. BRISTOWEsupposed that this additional Estimate was necessary by reason of the works at the Natural History Museum having made more rapid progress than was anticipated. He would, however, like to be assured that that was the case, for if more rapid progress had been made nothing could be more satisfactory; but if the additional Estimate was requisite only because the work had been more expensive, the matter required some explanation.
    MR. GERARD NOELwas happy to say that the increased Vote had been taken simply because the progress of the work had been much quicker than was expected. So far as he was aware, the original Estimate had not been exceeded, and he hoped the buildings would be completed in May.
    Vote agreed to.
    (7.) £1,900, Harbours, &c., under the Board of Trade.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that this Vote included a charge for Holyhead Harbour. That harbour was one of those gigantic engineering blunders which had entailed almost endless cost upon those who had been led into sanctioning it. Of the Supplementary Estimate of £1,900, £1,641 had been laid out on Holyhead Harbour. They were informed by a foot-note that the cost of repairing the damage done by a severe gale was £1,100, while the cost of covering the stone angle of the jetty with timber had been £537. It was a matter of common knowledge that Holyhead Harbour was constructed in such a way

    321
    that it was almost certain to be carried away permanently some day or other, and all the expenditure upon it would be rendered useless. The harbour was built in such a manner that the sea beat into an angle, where it must infallibly make a breach in the harbour walls. He wished to know what prospect there was of a cessation in this annual expenditure, or how much more money was intended to be spent on this costly and useless work?
    MR. J. G. TALBOTdeclined to enter into a discussion of the merits or demerits of Holyhead Harbour, on which he thought the House had already made up its mind. With regard to this particular Vote, unfortunately, last autumn, there was a very severe gale, and a great breach was made by the sea in the wall of the harbour. The Board of Trade consulted Sir John Hawkshaw, whose name was, doubtless, familiar to many hon. Members. It was found that it would be necessary to make a considerable expenditure at once in repairing the breach which the sea bad already made in the breakwater. Accordingly, in the present financial year, the expense mentioned in the Estimate—£1,100—was incurred. He would be deceiving the Committee if he led them to believe that that was all that would be required. Sir John Hawkshaw had stated that some additional works would be necessary, and the expenditure on them would appear in the Estimates of the ensuing year. With regard to covering the stone jetty with timber, that was done in order to make it secure. The cost of the work appeared in the Supplementary Estimates, because it was necessary to do it for the winter service. As hon. Members were aware, the force of the sea at Holyhead was very great, more particularly during the winter months.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
    (8.) £3,500, Treasury.
    MR. BRISTOWEobserved, that he could not understand the item. He should have thought that the Government would have known perfectly well the measures it intended to introduce, and would be able to estimate the cost
    322
    of drafting such Bills. He admitted that Bills ought to be drafted in a proper manner; but he could not understand how it was the Government, knowing what Bills it intended to bring forward, should make an original Estimate of £1,700, and a Supplementary Estimate of £3,500, as the cost of drafting such Bills. Why should a Supplementary Estimate of double the original Estimate be necessary? It was a most extraordinary state of things; and though it might possibly be accounted for, it seemed to him that the Estimates must be framed in a somewhat careless manner. He believed that there were few things which required more carefully examining than the Civil Service Estimates; and with regard to this particular Vote, he thought the Committee was entitled to have a full explanation.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONagreed that this Vote was a legitimate subject of criticism; but he was bound to point out to the Committee that the amount originally estimated was estimated under the idea of the cost that would be entailed by the employment of the ordinary staff in preparing Bills. But there had been many occasions on which, from peculiar circumstances, it was thought advisable, with the consent of the Treasury, to employ outside legal advice in the preparation of particular Bills. In the last Session of Parliament there were three or four Bills of a very important character, in the preparation of which it was considered necessary to employ outside legal advice. One of those Bills was the Criminal Code Bill, and in the preparation of that Sir James Fitzjames Stephen was employed, and his charges were included with the amount now under discussion. Mr. Reilly, another eminent draftsman, was also employed, and his bill was likewise included. Outside legal assistance was also obtained in the cases of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill, and the Bankruptcy Bill. The amount spent on legal advice, outside the ordinary staff, was last year in excess of the ordinary sum; and perhaps that accounted for the expenditure not being included in the general Estimate. He might further mention that every one of the Bills which had to be intrusted to outside legal advisers were only so intrusted after consultation with, and by consent

    323
    of, the Treasury, and on the evidence of the Heads of Departments, showing the necessity of the Bills being so drafted.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the explanation given of this Vote was, no doubt, very accurate; but it did not meet the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend. He must draw attention to the fact that the Estimates of the year provided for the payment of £2,500 a-year, increasing to £3,000, to a leading counsel, and £1,200 to an assistant counsel; there was also a staff of clerks, making the entire original Estimate for the ordinary counsel to the Treasury amount to £5,660. In addition to that, the Treasury laid upon the Table of the House an Estimate for fees to Parliamentary counsel outside those employed permanently, in respect of special and additional services. The reason alleged for this extraordinary charge was that they anticipated extra labour would be required in drafting Bills, and they estimated the amount at £1,700. The fact was that the £3,500 shown in the present Vote was in addi-to the £1,700, which itself was in addition to the ordinary expenditure on Parliamentary counsel. It was a most remarkable circumstance, that while the ordinary expenditure amounted to £5,600, the extraordinary expenditure incurred by the employment of learned gentlemen outside the Department came to no less a sum than £5,200, or nearly as much again as the original Estimate. He was entirely at a loss to explain this remarkable charge. When the matter was before the Committee last year, a noble Lord on the Ministerial side of the House thought the Supplementary Estimates then presented indefensible; but they were really not so utterly without justification as those which the Committee was now called upon to vote. He thought if greater pressure was put upon the permanent officials a great deal of good might be done. The fact was, these fees for drafting Bills were, no doubt, found to be a very nice thing to be given to learned gentlemen. There was a suggestion of jobbery in these matters which he did not believe existed however. Still, it was an expenditure of public money; and he could not understand, if his hon. Friend was anxious to put down unnecessary expenses of this kind, why he did not abolish these.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he could assure the hon. Member that the Secretary to the Treasury was the last person not to agree with his remarks as to expenses of this kind, which were, practically, very often forced upon him. The point which the hon. Member had brought to the notice of the Committee was that already £1,700 was taken for the additional assistance which was found now every year to be required in the Parliamentary Draftsmen's Office. Whether it arose from the immense energy of Members, or their desire for legislation, the result was that more Bills were required to be brought in, and carefully drafted; and there was no doubt that, notwithstanding the services of the learned draftsman and his assistants, a very great deal of outside aid had to be asked. The explanation of the excessive amount this year would be found in the fact that they had had two exceptionally heavy Bills, one especially so—namely, the Criminal Code Bill, which required special treatment, and certainly had been dealt with in a manner which had given great satisfaction. When he stated that £1,575 of the amount was expended in this way, and £1,135 in another Bill, he thought it would show that, although they had estimated in the ordinary way what the expenditure in this Department would be, the Supplementary Vote was justified. It was very difficult to resist the employment of a person so eminently qualified as Sir James Stephen was to conduct the drafting of the Criminal Code Bill; and he thought the Treasury were justified in consenting that the Bill should be drawn by Sir James Stephen, instead of being introduced in the ordinary way through the official Department. The items were, therefore, practically forced upon them by the nature of the Bills introduced; and that amount, though excessive, could hardly be avoided.
    MR. DILLWYNobserved, that the Government were aware of their intention to bring in these Bills; and therefore he saw no reason why the extra cost should be met by a Supplementary Estimate. The question was, why were they not brought in amongst the ordinary Estimates?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the Government had to decide the ordinary Estimates on Bills that were

    325
    absolutely before Parliament. The Estimates were framed in December, and many of the Bills included in the Supplementary Estimates were not practically decided upon until after the ordinary Estimates were in preparation. If they knew exactly the Bills they were bringing in, or intending to bring in, the suggestion of the hon. Member could be adopted; but the Estimates were framed on the average cost in the previous year, and occasionally there were instances where a Bill was decided upon later in the year, which cost a much larger sum than was anticipated.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he could understand that being so in the case of a small discrepancy; but in this instance the Supplementary Vote nearly covered the original sum.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, the excess did not principally arise in the preparation of the Bill, for upon that something like an average Estimate could be formed, but was caused by the alterations which were afterwards found to be required in it, and which might be considerable. This was especially the case as regarded the Criminal Code Bill, which was one of a wholly exceptional character, and as to which it was almost impossible to enter into any calculation of the charges involved in the preparation of the measure. He thought the Committee should bear in mind that the Estimate was, practically, not only for the past, but for the present year, as the Bill was about to be re-introduced and, he hoped, passed in the present Session.
    MAJOR NOLANthought the Committee, and particularly Irish Members, ought to express their displeasure at the inefficiency of the Drafting Department, by moving the rejection of the Vote. Irish Members had particular reason in the present Session to be annoyed at the inefficiency of that Department. It was largely due to the conduct of the Drafting Department that there was no Bill this year on the subject of University Education in Ireland. If the Department had done its duty, some sort of Bill, to give equal advantages in regard to University Education to the Catholics of Ireland, would have been brought in this year. He was aware that the Committee would think this statement on this point grossly improbable; and if it rested on his own
    326
    unsupported assertion, he would not expect the Committee for one moment to believe him. But, unfortunately for them—the Irish Members—they had the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was largely owing to the Drafting Department that they had no Bill this year for a Catholic University. He (Major Nolan) thought that the Drafting Department, having behaved so badly, the case was one in which they should enter a protest by dividing against the Vote.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONpointed out to the hon. and gallant Member that whatever might be alleged against the Drafting Department during the present year, the Supplementary Estimate before the House was one for last year, when the Intermediate Education Act for Ireland was passed.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was afraid that the anticipation of the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory) that the Criminal Code Bill would be passed this Session, would not be realized; and, in this respect, he must refer to the habit of the Government of preparing a lot of Bills which they had no immediate intention of bringing in. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that when the present Government came into Office they announced that it was their intention to withdraw themselves from the exciting and sensational topics which had occupied the attention of the preceding Government, and confine themselves to domestic legislation. Well, they had not fulfilled that pledge in the slightest degree; but they had kept up an appearance of fulfilling it, and mainly by the introduction of Bills upon every conceivable topic of domestic legislation at the beginning of the Session, involving very considerable expense, and without the slightest intention of carrying these Bills through their various stages. He believed that the Criminal Code Amendment Bill, if they could get it, would be an exceedingly valuable Bill. It would be worth far more than the £325 paid to Sir James Stephen for drafting it, because he had no doubt his labours were worth the money. But, at the same time, as the Bill was drafted last year, why was it not passed last year? He did not see the slightest chance of its being passed this year; and, in all probability, this Parliament would not see it carried into law. There-

    327
    fore, though the Bill might, to some extent, be valuable for public reference and discussion, the expenditure of this amount was practically a waste of money, as far as the country was concerned. He would now come to the question which had been raised by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan). He had pointed out that they ought to show their feeling as to the conduct of the Drafting Department by taking a Division against this Vote. He (Mr. Parnell) should be very unwilling to take a Division against that portion of the Vote which referred to the fees of counsel for drafting the Criminal Code Amendment Bill; and he would, therefore, suggest to his hon. and gallant Friend that it would be better to wait until the Vote for the current year came on for discussion, when they could mark their sense of the conduct of the Drafting Department by taking a Division against it. It might seem invidious to attack Sir James Stephen's fees, on account of the conduct of the officials of that Department. Sir James Stephen was not an official of the Department. He was simply an outsider, who had been called on to perform a very important and heavy work.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, there would be no fresh drafting of the Bill, unless further changes were necessary.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) £2,300, Home Office.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, he did not object to the amount of'£1,700 paid as fees to counsel engaged at inquests arising from explosions in mines, on behalf of Her Majesty. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could show that the money was spent properly, and where; but he objected to the cases being grouped together, and the sum spent on each inquiry not stated. He knew very well that the attendance of counsel at these inquests had been productive of good; but he was also well aware that the common phrase used by the population in the immediate neighbourhood of mines was, that the person sent down was frequently not "worthy of their salt." He thought they ought to know what these inquiries were, and where they took place. Indeed, he felt that he should be obliged to move that the Vote be deferred, unless it was stated what were the
    328
    inquiries which were instituted by Her Majesty, and who were the persons who conducted those inquiries. In some instances, the Representatives of Her Majesty were looked upon with perfect indifference; but if the names of the gentlemen to be sent down were made known, he had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would frequently have, on certain names being given out, remonstrances against the appointment. If these inquiries were to be efficient, and to produce any result worth anything at all, the persons appointed to attend them ought to have the full confidence of the friends of those who were lost, and the sufferers generally. It appeared to him that the sum was enormous; and he should be glad to know whether the expenditure had occurred at or since the time when these Estimates were brought forward? He was not aware whether they also included a sum of £50 for an Inspector attending the Tynewydd Inquiry, and doing nothing more than his duty. He repeated, that he felt bound to move that the Vote be deferred without this information. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary shook his head; but he thought he had the liberty of protesting and dividing the Committee on the subject, which was all he could do. What he wanted to know was, where these inquires took place? He believed they had done much good, and he had nothing to say against them, or as to the inquiries into the competency of managers; but there was a sum of £1,700 spent in this way, and he thought they ought to know where it had been spent, and if the counsel engaged were, in public opinion, competent to do the work.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was bound to say, in reply to the hon. Member, that there had never been a colliery explosion during the last few years but the hon. Member had impressed upon him the necessity of sending counsel down to the inquest, and he had stated that it had always been his practice to send the best man down. [Mr. MACDONALD: I beg—] He (Mr. Assheton Cross) would remind the hon. Member that he was in possession of the House, and that after he had concluded the hon. Member would have an opportunity to make an additional statement. All these Reports on

    329
    the questions referred to by the hon. Member had necessarily been placed on the Table of the House; and that being so, the names of the persons who assisted at the inquiries would be found there. The Papers were at the service of the hon. Member in the Library. The hon. Member asked where these inquiries were held; but he had only to read the Blue Books, which had been laid on the Table of the House, to find them; and he did not know that the hon. Member required further information. The hon. Member had also given Notice of his intention to ask, from time to time, whether counsel would attend at such and such an inquiry, at this or that place? but he did not know that much would be gained by asking those Questions. The hon. Member knew that in the case of anything like a serious inquest, one of the most able counsel would go down as a matter of course; therefore, he could not see that any special good could arise from the Question.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had either misunderstood his remarks, or he had been misinformed since he entered the House. He stated most distinctly that he did not find fault with these inquiries—the very reverse was the case, for he believed them to be beneficial and of great service to the mining population, whether as regarded the attendance of counsel on behalf of Her Majesty at inquests, or the examination as to the competency of managers. What he did object to was the lumping together of this information by the Government without telling them where the inquiries were held—and he objected still. The right hon. Gentleman asked him to go to the Library, with only the expenditure of £1,700 in his hands, there to rake up the Blue Books for the last year, where he might find the information asked. He felt bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that there was not within the walls of the Library a document that showed the amount of the expenses laid out on each individual inquiry; and, further, that notwithstanding the large amount of legal acumen that he possessed, he would not ferret out anything that would give the information that he said could be found there. He might find certain expenses charged for attending certain inquests, and a certain number of certificates of competence issued;

    330
    but what was there in that which would lead him to see the expenditure at special inquiries—£500, for instance, at Abercarne, £400 at another, and so on? What he wanted was to know where the money had been spent.
    MR. PARNELLthought the request of the hon. Member a very reasonable one, although he did not suppose the right hon. Gentleman would be able to comply with it at the moment. He could not see, however, why the right hon. Gentleman should not give the required information hereafter. If they had no means of ascertaining how much was spent on each inquiry, they had no means of gauging whether the money had been properly applied; because it was perfectly manifest to all that some of these inquiries were very much more important than others, in proportion to their different character. He could quite understand that the hon. Member for Stafford might desire information as to some particular inquiry in which he was interested; and, therefore, he might very fairly take exception to this Vote, and move the reduction of this item. He certainly thought that the hon. Member was entitled to the information for which he asked; and he should suggest that instead of the Vote being postponed the information should be given hereafter. There had been an interesting discussion last year to which the hon. Member had made most able contributions, and at that time they were all very much impressed with the desire of the Home Secretary to deal with these terrible calamities in mines which, so far from decreasing, seemed to be getting worse and worse. He had seen that lime had been used for blasting purposes in America, where it was found that the explosion of this substance, when inclosed in a cartridge and rammed into a hole, and then put through a slackening process, was sufficient for blasting, and had precisely the same effect as gunpowder in breaking down the coal, without, of course, its dangers. He asked, whether the attention of the Home Secretary had been directed to that process, and whether any inquiries had been made with reference thereto?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, my attention has been directed to the process of using lime for blasting purposes, as described by the hon. Member for

    331
    Meath. It is, besides, my own opinion that there is much scientific knowledge possessed by us at the present time which might really conduce to the reduction of the loss of life if it could be practically applied. I have also been much struck by another question, and that is the lighting of mines, which would appear to be capable of very large improvement by means of electricity. No doubt, the electric light may be introduced and applied in various ways, so as to avoid all danger from the carrying of lamps or naked lights. I am glad that attention has been further directed to this subject by the hon. Member, so that nothing may be overlooked which may tend to mitigate the terrible loss of life which occurs; but I am bound to say that if hon. Members will compare the number of persons employed in mines and the amount of coal got up, they will see that the loss of life has been materially reduced since the Mines Regulation Act has been in force. On the other hand, I may add that we shall do all we possibly can to reduce still further this terrible, although I am bound to say, not growing, evil. With this view, I thought it right, not many months ago, to put myself in communication with the Royal Society, laying the case before them and asking if they could advise any means by which the desired result could be brought about. They received my application with that frankness and cordiality which might have been expected from the Royal Society, and discussed it, over and over again, at several meetings. Eventually they wrote me a letter informing me of their willingness to assist. The result was that I came to the conclusion that it would be wise for the Government to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject, and I communicated that decision to the Royal Society. I placed at their disposal four seats on the Committee, which they at once accepted, on condition that the remainder should be filled by practical men. A Royal Commission was, consequently, appointed, among the Members of which are the hon. Member for Durham (Sir George Elliot), and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), besides two of the most experienced mining engineers whom I could find. They have decided to go into the question of lighting, and that of
    332
    blasting by gunpowder and lime, respectively, as well as the best means that can be produced for otherwise mitigating this loss of life. They must, of course, take some time in reaching a conclusion; but their sittings have already commenced, and I do hope that their labours will meet with success. With regard to the special point raised by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) as to the inquiries which have been held concerning colliery explosions, I am sure he would not wish to reduce this Vote by a single farthing. The expenses of the different persons who have gone down to attend these investigations being always paid according to the regular Treasury scale of so much per day, which is less than they could earn elsewhere. I assure the hon. Member that not one single farthing has been paid to anyone beyond the actual necessary expense of attendance. I think I may say also that £500 of the amount in question is for expenses attendant upon some of the inquiries held last year; and the accounts for these not having been sent in, that sum does not appear in the former Estimates, so that the real expense under this head for the present year is only £1,200. I hope the hon. Member will allow the Vote to pass.
    MR. J. COWEN, replying to the question raised by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), said, that lime had been successfully used for blasting purposes in Germany; but that its effect depended upon the description of the coal to be blasted, as well as upon the quality of the lime employed. He had himself seen the electric light applied in the North of England to the lighting of mines; but the objection there taken to it was that it did not throw light into the corners and crevices, while the cost of its application was immense. For these reasons he very much doubted whether it would ever be used in this country. As to the point before the Committee, he thought that neither the hon. Members for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), nor any persons interested in mining operations, had any blame to cast upon the mining administration of the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, they had nothing but encomiums to pass upon the way in which the Mines Regulation Act had been worked under his directions. Its

    333
    application in special instances might have caused differences of opinion; but he believed that to be the general feeling of all persons interested in the mining districts. As to the expenses of attending inquests, it was impossible, in a statement upon Estimates, to give all the details. They could not have every item of expenditure stated, or if they did, the Estimates, instead of being comprised in the tolerably large book now presented, would require a volume four or five times as large. He therefore thought the hon. Member should be satisfied with the reply of the Home Secretary, that the sum of £1,700 had been expended on these inquiries, all of which, he thought, were inquiries that should have been held, and with the information which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to place at his disposal. If the hon. Member would permit the Vote to pass, he would have an opportunity of making any objection which he might entertain to particular items upon the Report.
    MR. BURTsaid, it was clear that all the hon. Member for Stafford wanted was to know where the money went, and in that he was quite right; while, with regard to the inquiries themselves, he had expressed nothing but approval. These inquiries had, no doubt, done a great deal of good. The Home Secretary had already, in his reply, given considerably more detailed information than was apparent on the face of the Estimates, and had pointed out that £500 of the amount was for fees and expenses incurred during the previous year. The item was, of course, a considerable portion of the £1,700, concerning which his hon. Friend (Mr. Macdonald) wanted an explanation. He entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) in advising that the question should be allowed to rest for the present; and, perhaps, at a future time, some more detailed information would be forthcoming.
    MR. MACDONALDpointed out that lime could never be used for blasting purposes unless the coal was holed underneath, which resulted in deterioration and waste. It could not burst coal or iron or stone out of the solid—there must be a weakness somewhere before lime could do any work. He felt bound to tell the hon. Member for Meath and the hon. Member for Newcastle, and the
    334
    House, that slaked lime had been known to those engaged in mining operations for more than a century. He desired to obtain full information as to the cost of some of the inquiries that had been held which he thought he was entitled to have from the right hon. Gentleman, who had, however, referred him to the printed Reports in the Library of the House. But it was a fact that those Reports did not contain the desired information. He trusted that fuller information would be given, in order to satisfy a feeling which existed among the public that some of the inquiries cost a great deal too much. No one entertained more respect than he did for the services of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Home Office, especially those which related to mining operations. Since the death of Sir George Lewis, no one had attempted more or done so much as the present Home Secretary in that Department.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) £3,350, Foreign Office.
    MR. PARNELLremarked that this Vote contained an item for the travelling expenses of a messenger on continuous journeys to Berlin during the sitting of the Congress, and thought that the present was a good opportunity for Her Majesty's Opposition to take a Division upon the cost of this running backwards and forwards between Berlin and London, rendered necessary by the excitement got up last year by the Earl of Beaconsfield. He thought the Opposition Leaders would show their sense by dividing the Committee.
    Vote agreed to.
    (11.) £925, Colonial Office.
    (12.) £327, Lunacy Commission, England.
    (13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £33,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."
    MR. MUNTZcould not understand how such an enormous amount could be spent upon stationery. The sum was continually on the increase, and, to his own knowledge, it had reached more than double what it was not very long ago.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that a large proportion of the addition to this item arose from the altered method of arranging the accounts in the Stationery Office, which it was believed, on the part of the Treasury, would render them more satisfactory in the future. The practice of the Stationery Office used to be to charge, or rather to estimate, for what they supplied to the printing offices, and this the Treasury conceived to be rather a vicious system of keeping the accounts. The consequence was a change, by which, for some few months past, only the actual amounts paid were allowed to be included? That change accounted for a very large portion of the total of this £33,000 which had been reached by the unexpected addition of several other items—namely, for printing the index for the Registrar General in Ireland, which cost £1,500 more than was anticipated. Again, the printing for the prisons in England was only roughly estimated last year, from want of knowledge at that time as to the amount that would really be wanted. Then there was nearly £2,000, that was not foreseen, for binding and stationery for the use of the Inland Revenue Office, estimated at £17,000, in the hope that this sum would cover the cost of their requirements, but which had actually amounted to £19,000. The real excess was £17,000, a large portion of which was due to the fact that there were certain contracts that should have been paid for out of the money voted last year, which money, as they were not sent in during the last financial year, was paid into the Exchequer, and had again to be provided. From this, it would be seen that the £33,000 now asked was really due to the adjustment of accounts, which would, in future, be placed on a far more satisfactory basis; and that the differences referred to were not the result of any miscalculation in the cost of stationery, wherein he begged to point out to the Committee a considerable saving had been effected.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, this sum of £17,000 was a very large one to be attributed to unforeseen and exceptional work, and would like to receive a little further explanation.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that it had been the habit to allow a number of arrears to run on from year to year; that was not a satisfactory way of dealing with accounts; and the arrears, which had now been paid up, were included in the £17,000 referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn).
    MR. BRISTOWEsaid, that now they were upon the subject, he would call the attention of the Committee to another item that had not been touched upon. There was actually the sum of £5,500 additional for binding alone. In his opinion, the quantity of binding required would be pretty much the same for one year as for another. He could not understand that excessive increase of charge. At all events, he considered that those who had control of the Estimates should be able to frame them less wide of the mark.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the explanation was that out of the sum of £5,500 referred to by the hon. Member, £3,300 was for a contract that had been outstanding during last year; and the money having been paid into the Exchequer had, therefore, to be again provided. The remaining £1,200 was for binding at the new prisons, concerning which, as was stated in the Vote last year, no papers were in the hands of the Department, and the amount of binding requisite was, therefore, unknown.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINremarked that he should vote this money with greater satisfaction if he could feel that more use was being made of the Papers and documents printed by order of the House. He thought many valuable Papers, which now went to the tallow-chandler and the butterman might, with great advantage, be sent to the Free Libraries throughout the country. He felt that something should be done by the Departments to assist these institutions with some of the documents which were printed by order of the House; and he was quite convinced that anyone who had practical knowledge on the subject would agree that no extra expense would be involved, as only about

    337
    100 extra copies would be required. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give this matter his careful attention.
    MR. HERMONsaid, what he objected to about Parliamentary Papers was that they very often did not get them until after they were of use. There were certain Members who did not care for the Blue Books, and he must say that many of them were a great nuisance to himself; but there were many cases in which really important Papers did not come to hand till long after they were of use. He thought if competition was sought for the Parliamentary printing, they would get Papers with very much more expedition than now, and at less cost.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, there was a separate Department for the printing of Papers for the House of Commons, and over that Department the Stationery Department had no control. The question, however, had been under the notice of Mr. Speaker during last Session; and he confessed, for his own part, that he should be glad to fall in with the views of many hon. Members, and that an endeavour should be made to see if some fresh arrangement could not be come to in regard to the printing. It had often occurred to him that the Papers should only be sent to those Members who wished for them, and that they should be had on application; or that Members should have the power of directing them to be sent to some institutions at the end of the Session to meet the point which had been raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain).
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether the printing of books under the National Education Board in Ireland was included in this Vote? He assumed that it was, and he wanted to complain of the monopoly enjoyed by the booksellers of the Board in the sale of school books to be used in the National schools. These books had the reputation of being Government books, and there was a certain unpopularity attaching to them, as representing particular views; but, from a practical and business point of view, the inconvenience was also very great. All the teachers were allowed to sell only these books, and as a consequence, all competition was shut out. Although the children did get the books
    338
    at a reduced price, yet the difference between that price and the trade price came out of the pockets of the ratepayers. The system also was unfair, because it prevented the booksellers of Ireland from competing for the sale of these school books, while, on the other hand, the taxpayers were obliged to pay more than was fair for the work done.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEknew, from his own experience, that great benefit resulted from sending Blue Books to people in the country; and, therefore, he did hope that the Government would do something to carry out the suggestion that had been made. He had long been in the habit of sending those of his Papers which he thought would interest them to some of his constituents. They had in Leeds a magnificent Free Library, to which he sent his copy of the Report on the Blantyre Explosion. That was a book which was so much in request that sometimes there were between 40 or 50 names down for it.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, it had been suggested that the printing expenses of that House should be cut down. He was entirely opposed to narrow economy in matters of this kind; for it must be remembered that these Papers not only educated the country and furnished information to the nation, but they also were the means of educating Members of the House, and of furnishing them with facts on subjects in which they were interested.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDdid not think it should be suggested that there were any Members who did not use their Blue Books. Of course, they could not read all the Papers that were sent them; but some would read those that bore on the subject especially interesting to them, and others would study others. It must be remembered, also, that if these Papers were sold their diffusion all over the country did a great deal of good.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, it was clear that if the objections to the new management were founded on economy, then the Supplemental Estimates justified such objections. The re-Vote of £ 10,000 had arisen from the changes made in the Department, and, therefore, did not really signify. As he understood the practice, they used to charge each Department with the stationery served out each day, and credit

    339
    it to the Department when paid for. There might, however, be this difference in the ultimate result—that under this Vote they did not get all the money which certain Departments were formerly charged with; they only got a portion of it. This was not an improvement. Then, again, some of the accounts due were not estimated for until after the time for payment was passed. That was not the way in which the accounts of a Public Department should be kept. It was not right that £10,000 due to a man should not be paid because he had omitted to send in his account on a particular day. Again, great objection must be taken to a Department which permitted accounts to go into arrears of such long standing as these were. How could the public accounts be properly kept if now only the Committee was asked to vote the payment of an account which ought to have been paid two or three years ago? Amongst the Votes that evening several related to arrears of claims not paid in proper time. He did hope that the Stationery Department would be more thoroughly looked after than it was at present. He would mention one other item which seemed extraordinary in this account. £1,700 was originally estimated for the cost of the publication of a particular volume, and after it was published a Supplementary Estimate of £2,000 was made. Many details in this account required proper investigation, and he believed the cost of the publication of some of the Blue Books could be reduced by one-third.
    MR. PELLobserved, that there was one thing of extreme importance with respect to the Parliamentary Papers which he should like to mention to the Committee. He thought it desirable to bring the subject forward, in order that those in whose charge the matter lay might be able to ascertain the cause of the evil. The Report of the Education Department—a very important document, which every Member of the House who cared for the public interests desired to see—was not delivered till the 8th of November. But 10 days before its delivery a review of the book appeared in the public papers. That was not the way in which Members should be treated. He was given to understand that there was a reason for this; but whatever reason there might
    340
    be, the practice should be put an end to without delay. If the market were supplied first, including newspapers, libraries, and persons who were allowed to pay for the Papers, the first batch was thus taken off, and hon. Members were left to get theirs at a later period. No Paper was more important than the Report of the Education Department, and it was manifestly wrong that that document should have been kept back until the 8th of November. When he saw the review of the Report in The Times he came to the House for his Blue Book, and was told that he could not have it until the next batch was printed, which would not be until a day or two later. He hoped that attention would be called to this proceeding, and that for the future it would be stopped.
    MR. MACDONALDobserved, that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) had touched upon the subject of economy in printing. It so happened that when the Blue Book in question was on his table a printer, whom he knew, came to see him. He asked what would be the cost of printing a book like that? The answer was, that he could get it up for 4s., which was 2s. 10 d. less than the Government price. Two-and-tenpence was a considerable addition to make in the cost of printing by a Public Department; and he believed that if the printing of the country, instead of being always centred in the same hands, were thrown open, in accordance with the usual practice of buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest, then it would be found that the cost price of the printing of the country would be much reduced. He agreed with the hon. Member for Preston in thinking that until there was a public competition for the whole of the printing of the country it would not be done so cheaply as it ought to be. The right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard) seemed to think that the printing was now very cheap. So the printing might be, if judged by the standard of the Bond Street bookseller. The Government Papers might be very cheap at the rates that such a bookseller would charge for them. But the fact still remained, that they were not done so cheaply as the public could get them done. The observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) were,

    341
    in his opinion, perfectly true. In the town he had the honour to represent (Stafford) there was a working man's club, and he was in the habit of sending off nearly the whole of his books to that club, and he found that the workmen read these books with avidity. But could it be expected that a workman in the town of Stafford could pay 6s. 10 d. for the Civil Service Estimates for the purpose of his private reading? It was impossible for workmen to do that out of their wages at the present moment; and until these Estimates were diffused among the working men of this country, and until the working people understood the amount of money which was thrown away by these Votes, they could never appreciate the working of this House. It would be highly desirable that the whole of these Estimates should be read by the working classes of this country, and to enable them to do that they should be sold for 6d. He believed that, if the Estimates were sold for 6d., more caution would be exercised in Public Expenditure, and a great deal less would be spent in the frivolous manner in which it was now done. Were the great body of the taxpayers to know that millions of money was voted here by half-a-dozen of persons, as it often was done, he believed that hon. Gentlemen who left this work to the few would very quickly have to fill the House, and what was more, exhibit greater interest in the whole question of voting Supply than they did now.
    MR. J. COWENthought that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) was under some misapprehension. No doubt the cost of one copy of the Civil Service Estimates was 6s. 10 d.; but when the number of copies was multiplied the cost became less. The whole subject had repeatedly been brought before the notice of the House of Commons. In a former Session a Committee was appointed, of which his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was a Member, to consider the subject. The printing of the House of Commons was one of the points which engaged their attention, as well as the expenses of the stationery in different Departments. He did not think that economy should be begun by reducing the sums spent on diffusing information for the benefit of the country; but he agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr.
    342
    Chamberlain) that it would be desirable if that information could be more extensively scattered over the country. He would draw the attention of the noble Lord the Postmaster General to the question of devising some means by which these Papers might be cheaply distributed. There was scarcely any Constitutional country he knew of where facilities were not given for the distribution of information published by Parliament. The Congress of America published and distributed to Members a much larger amount of information than was the case in this country; and it not only did that, but it afforded free opportunities of sending the publications to the constituencies represented by the Members. In France, also, this was the case; and even in Germany, where, under the present régime, there was not thought to be any special desire to diffuse knowledge, better facilities existed for the transmission of official publications than in this country. If any means could be devised by which Members could be allowed to send official publications carriage free to public libraries, the boon would be highly appreciated, and it would relieve hon. Members of a considerable amount of inconvenience. With respect to getting the publications at an early date, he presumed that that matter could be remedied by the Secretary to the Treasury. He assumed, also, that the printing and stationery of the Public Departments was done under estimate; for he did not suppose the Government would allow themselves to be charged with the highest price. The Government ought not to pay more than a fair price for the printing and stationery. It should also be remembered that the cost of printing these publications ought to be cheaper than formerly, because there had been a considerable reduction in the price of paper. Therefore, without special information, he assumed that if the Government got their work done by estimate they had it done in the cheapest and most efficient manner.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought that it was very desirable to diffuse information throughout the country by means of Blue Books. They were not printed to sell; the cost of setting them up in type was incurred for the information of the House and for official purposes; the expense of print-

    343
    ing additional copies to sell involved only the cost of the paper on which they were printed, for the cost of striking off additional copies was very trifling. Therefore, if the cost of paper and the expense of striking off additional copies of official Papers were alone taken into consideration, they could be sold at a very cheap price, and ought to be so sold. The present mode of charging for the transmission of Blue Books and Parliamentary Papers was very unsatisfactory, for by the book-post rate almost as much was charged for a pound of printed matter as for a pound of letters. He thought the Government might have additional copies printed as he had suggested, and have them sold at cost price, and circulated in the country at cost price—for there was no justification for making a profit out of these books, nor was there any reason why any profit should be made out of their transmission.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, it was a common mistake, which could not be too often mentioned, that it was the printing of the Blue Books and Returns which constituted the greater part of this vast Estimate for printing and stationery. The fact was that these matters formed but a very small part of the expenses. With regard to the suggestion that those Members who did not want their Parliamentary Papers might have them sent to institutions in their constituencies, he did not think that that suggestion was of much value, because there were very few Members who did not want the books. For his own part, he wanted the most important Blue Books, and kept them for reference from one Session to another; and it would probably happen that one which he did not require his constituents would not also care for, so that the plan was not likely to answer.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to draw attention to what had happened to him once or twice during the present Session—namely, that a document was to be found in the newspapers some two or three days before it was placed in the hands of hon. Members. The plan had caused him great confusion, for seeing the review of a Blue Book he had thought he had omitted to notice it, and had looked amongst his Papers for it, and had subsequently found that it was issued to him two or three days after-
    344
    wards. He thought that this was a grievance which ought to be rectified by the persons in charge of the Stationery Department. Moreover, the grievance did not stop there, for all the newspapers did not get these publications, and there was a good deal of jealousy amongst the Press in consequence of some newspapers getting copies in advance of others. He thought that some measure should be taken to prevent these publications from getting into the hands of the newspapers before they were issued to Members, for Members were placed at a disadvantage when information appeared in the papers and the public know of it before it came to their knowledge.
    MR. MELDONhoped that there would be some reduction made in this Vote, in accordance with the hopes which the Secretary to the Treasury had held out. He begged to call attention to the matter in order that it might be remedied before the Estimates for the next year came under consideration. With regard to the distribution of Parliamentary Papers, it had been suggested that there should be a larger distribution throughout the country; but attention had not been called to the fact that during the Parliamentary Recess Papers only reached hon. Members if they chanced to be in London. During the Vacation the most important Papers were delivered, and Members had no means of getting them unless they made arrangements to have them forwarded to them. He believed that in Dublin and Edinburgh there were offices where the Papers were issued to Members without expense. On former occasions he had been told that this matter would be looked to, but up to the present time nothing whatever had been done. As regarded the expense of printing, there was one point to which he was surprised attention had not been called, and that was that a report had been generally circulated that an eminent printer had guaranteed to do the printing of the House of Commons for one-half of the amount now paid. That was an important fact; and he thought there ought to be some inquiry into the subject, with a view of seeing whether there were not printers in London who would undertake the work at half the expense now incurred. It was a monstrous thing, if that were the case, that the country

    345
    should now be paying the large sums it was. Hon. Members had not ever been told whether, at the present time, the printing of the House was done by contract. He believed that if it were put up to contract, the amount now expended would be considerably reduced. Some reference had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr O'Shaughnessy) to the Report on National Education. The books used by the National teachers of Ireland, under the present system, must be printed by the Government, and the teachers were not allowed to sell any but Government books. Formerly the teachers had a small commission on the Government sales; but recently, notwithstanding the fact that the small salaries of those teachers had been a matter of strong comment, this commission had been taken from them. He believed that the books in question could be more cheaply printed by private printers, and could be sold for a less price than they now were. When the small commission for the sale of these books was withdrawn from the teachers they were given nothing in its place. He hoped that before the Estimates came up next Session this matter would receive the attention it deserved.
    MR. J. COWENwished to make an explanation with regard to the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). It was a fact that anyone who paid 16 guineas a-year was supplied with all the Blue Books and official Papers. He believed that those who paid that sum were entitled to receive the Books earlier than Members, and it was from that circumstance the newspapers obtained the Reports referred to.
    MAJOR NOLANthought that that explanation made the matter much worse. Hon. Members were sent there by their constituents to look after their interests, and yet they were not treated so well by the country as persons that paid 16 guineas a-year.
    MR. DILLWYNasked whether the Papers were printed by contract or not?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the printing of the House of Commons was not under the control of the Stationery Department.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsuggested that a Committee should be appointed
    346
    to investigate into the whole subject of the printing of the House. With reference to the Supplementary Estimate of £17,000, he thought it was a very large sum, especially so when hon. Members remembered the boast which had been made that a considerable saving would be effected by the new appointment to which reference had been made. With regard to the distribution of the Parliamentary Papers, he was entirely of opinion that it failed to meet the requirements of Members; and he thought that they should have this information on the Supplementary Estimates in time for the coming Estimates.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not wish to delay the taking of this Vote, but he certainly wanted a little further information with reference to the question he had raised. It was one of the greatest importance, and excited in the country an amount of interest which could hardly be appreciated by those who were resident in London. What he had suggested was that the Government should use its influence in order to secure the distribution of the more important Bills and Reports of Committees amongst a certain number of public institutions in the Provinces to the extent of not more than 100. The Secretary to the Treasury had told him that the Stationery Department had very little to do with this matter—that it was not responsible; but it appeared to him that the Stationery Department found the paper for printing and the binding, and he did not know any other Vote upon which to raise this subject. The Secretary to the Treasury sympathized with the object he had in view; but he did not think the proposition of the hon. Gentleman at all satisfactory. He suggested that a great many Members did not want their Papers, and therefore these could be utilized as he had suggested. He pointed out that those who did not want their Papers would not be connected with large towns, but they who were connected with those towns found that they did want their Papers, and that they could not spare them, even for the purpose for which he now asked them from the Government. Those Members complained of the large sums of money taken from the Metropolitan towns in England and Scotland for the maintenance of public libraries—the British Museum, and similar institutions in London—and they

    347
    asked that some corresponding advantage should be made to libraries in the leading towns in the Provinces. He did not suppose that that was exactly the time to press upon the Government any immediate expenditure; but he calculated that his proposal would involve no increased outlay. He assumed that the number of documents printed varied in accordance with the importance of the subject; and he undertook to say that the printing of 100 additional copies would not be appreciable. The type being set up, the cost involved would only amount to the value of the paper. His own opinion was that the 100 copies might be taken from the stock which went into the cellar of the House, and was never seen afterwards. There was not a public library in the North or South of America which did not have every public document supplied free by the Government; and what he proposed was that in the case of really important public documents, issued at the instance of and by the authority of the Government, and all Reports of Committees, one copy of each of these documents should be sent to the great public institutions—such as public reference libraries in great towns.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what he had said. It was, that hon. Members were always ready to condemn the growing expenditure of the country, and one of the expenses complained of was the large amount annually spent for the printing of the Blue Books of the House of Commons. The printing of the Bills, and of the different Books and Papers, was managed in this way—Copies of all the different Books were printed, and were divided by order of Mr. Speaker into a double list. On one list a certain number of Books and Papers were entered, and those were left in the House of Commons, where Members could put their names down for a copy, while the others were sent to each Member. His suggestion was that as there were numerous instances in which Members took so little interest in their Papers as not to require them, that those Papers might be utilized for the purpose suggested by the hon. Member, while, at the same time, avoiding any increase of expenditure. It would, however, be inconsistent to create the right of every hon. Member
    348
    to a second copy—such a course would double the number issued.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Secretary to the Treasury had a little misunderstood his suggestion. What he had suggested was that certain public institutions, not exceeding 100, should have the right to take a copy of these Bills and Reports; and he believed that the cost of printing 100 copies extra, even if that were necessary, would but amount to a fractional increase of expenditure.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was of opinion that the number of copies printed was in excess of the number required, and he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Birmingham that his suggestion might be carried out with a very little extra cost. He was strongly in favour of the point raised by the hon. Member.
    MR. PARNELLthought the Secretary to the Treasury was a little "penny-wise." He told them that they must all be very economical. He thought the reason why the Government opposed the proposition was because they were determined it should not be complied with. He believed the Government dared not allow the Papers published by Parliament a large circulation in the country. If they did, the public would understand questions in a manner not at all pleasant to the occupants of the Treasury Bench at the present time. He asked the hon. Baronet to elevate himself, to take a high standard, and to approach this subject with some sense of the grave considerations it involved. Was it a proper way to answer the hon. Member for Birmingham to suggest that those Members who took so little interest in the proceedings of Parliament and their duties to their constituencies as never to call for their Papers, who did not even care whether they saw them or not from one Session to another, should be invited to give directions that those Papers should be placed at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of circulating them amongst the public institutions of the country? It was idle to suppose that a Member who thought so little of his duties would go out of his way to sign an order, or give directions that his Papers should be forwarded to a public institution.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he never suggested anything of the kind. What he said was that there

    349
    were two sets of documents, one circulated amongst Members, and the others not; that as a great many Members never required the second copy they might be induced to give instructions that the copy at their disposal might be forwarded to the public libraries.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that was at least a complicated way in which to arrive at the simple conclusion he had drawn. They paid £484,000 for printing and stationery; and supposing they had 100 more copies of the public Papers printed, how much more would the cost be? Perhaps a quarter per cent; but, in all probability, £1,000 would suffice. He hoped it would go forth as the opinion of the front Treasury Bench that, although Parliament might provide copies for itself at the expense of £484,000 a-year, the Government was not of opinion that it was desirable to provide the large towns with 100 extra copies.
    MR. RITCHIEhoped the Government would consent to no such proposition as this. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had said that not more than 100 copies would be required; but he had no doubt that if that number were granted others would be demanded. What Member was there in the House who had not a high opinion of the merits and claims of some club or library in his constituency, and who would not think it an unequal rule if he did not get a copy? So far as his experience went, there was not the slightest difficulty in obtaining copies of those documents. He remembered a special case two years ago in which a friend of his wanted a special Blue Book for his constituents who were greatly interested in it. By simply asking Members of the House he got no less than 15 copies of that Blue Book to send to his constituents. Hon. Members opposite were particularly careful, when addressing their constituents, to point out any increase in the expenses of Government Departments, and to find fault with such increase, however small it might be. It was those hon. Members who were now asking the Government to increase the already heavy expenses in a manner which he thought altogether unnecessary.
    MR. BARRANthought the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) could not have had much experience in connection with public
    350
    libraries, and he probably fairly represented a district which had no public libraries. If the hon. Member had had some of the experiences of Members of that House he would not have used the arguments he had put forward. He supported the proposal, because he knew the desire there was amongst the people to possess these Reports, and to use them as a means of acquainting themselves with the affairs of the nation. He thought public institutions ought to be supplied direct from that House with the Reports suggested by the hon. Member for Birmingham, and that public libraries ought to be encouraged. Those who were connected with public libraries felt that the more they could store the mind of the public with the legislation for the people—pecuniary or otherwise—and the more they could stimulate the desire for this knowledge on the part of the people, the better they would be fitted to discharge their duties towards their country. They were told, from time to time, that the people were not sufficiently informed to give opinions on matters coming before the House; and he thought the easiest way to make them so was to give them the information which would be conveyed to them through the adoption of the proposition of the hon. Member.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he must say that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) did not show much magnanimity to his proposition. The hon. Member represented a Metropolitan constituency—the Tower Hamlets—which took part in the advantage of free libraries, free picture galleries, and museums, which were provided at the expense of the nation, and towards which they in the country had to contribute; and, therefore, when they asked that a few pounds should be spent in order that the country people might have the advantage of these Books, in a fit of unwonted economy the hon. Member got up and offered his opposition. He ventured to suggest to the hon. Member that he should wait until the Vote was abused before suggesting the possibility of it. His proposition was that these books should be provided to 100 free libraries—maintained out of the rates and managed under local municipal control—and he begged to give Notice on going into Committee on the Civil Service Estimates of a Resolution.
    MR. MUNTZthought it was absurd to I send round to Members Blue Books and Papers which, perhaps, no one ever took any interest in. He thought Members should have on their tables instead a list of Sessional Papers, and those who desired might apply for them. He was perfectly certain £100,000 a-year was thrown away in Blue Books, &c. Those who wanted special copies had found great difficulty in getting them. He hoped the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) would follow his example, and send his books to a library. He had forwarded his to the Birmingham Free Library; but, unfortunately, they had all been destroyed in the late fire.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he had been unable to obtain copies for a library in his own town.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, that probably the hon. Member for Birmingham, like a good many other Representatives of large constituencies, had plenty of other work, without running about asking Members for their spare Blue Books. If the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury thought the proposition such a good one, could he not go a little further and say that it would be agreed to?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it appeared to him to be a great mistake that newspapers were supplied with copies in advance of Members. The result was that the Members saw summaries of their contents in the newspapers before having the official document itself. With regard to the printing, the hon. Baronet did not seem to know the way in which it was done. He wished he would explain the system of giving the contracts, and the way in which the printing was carried out. They had been told that the printing could be done at half the present cost to the Government. If that were anything like truth, it appeared that the business of the Government was carried on in a very unprincipled manner. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £10,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for Stationery, Printing, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ire-
    352
    land, and some Dependencies, and for Stationery, Binding, Printing, and Paper for the two Houses of Parliament, including the Salaries and Expenses of the Stationery Office."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDinquired whether it was a fact that one or two newspapers received information in advance of the others? because, if that was so, it appeared to him to be a proceeding that did not recommend itself to the Members of that House. The rule should be either to send copies of Parliamentary Papers to all the newspapers, at all events to those published in London, no matter what their political opinions were—or to none.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Baronet had not replied to his inquiry whether or not he would do so as he had asked him?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONassured the hon. Gentleman that no discourtesy had been intended. He had already stated to the House that neither he nor the Government knew of any such priority as that referred to in the delivery of Parliamentary Papers. He understood that it was suggested by the hon. Member that some such preference had been shown, and he would endeavour to ascertain the facts before Report. He could not promise to do what had been asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), because the Government had no power in that matter, which was entirely under the control of Mr. Speaker. The House of Commons used its official authority in regulating the printing of all books, and the stationery in stock, whilst the Stationery Office simply found the material.
    MR. W. H. JAMESinquired whether the hon. Baronet would ask Mr. Speaker to give his consent to the documents in question being presented to the public libraries? He also desired to know what became of the surplus documents now? There was, undoubtedly, a limited number of persons who had time to investigate questions which appeared in the Blue Books; and he asked the hon. Baronet what there was to prevent those documents, printed in excess of the required number, being sent, as suggested, to the public libraries?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that was exactly his original proposal—that the surplus documents should be utilized in the way suggested

    353
    by the hon. Member. The suggestion had been under the consideration of Mr. Speaker during the last Session—indeed, the whole subject of printing for the House of Commons was being considered with a view to its revision. The subject should again be brought under the notice of Mr. Speaker, and it was to be hoped that an arrangement, satisfactory to hon. Members, would be arrived at.
    MR. PARNELLthought that the hon. Gentleman had forgotten what he had stated to the Committee some time ago, that there was a surplus of books down in the cellar, which he proposed should be distributed amongst the public libraries. It would be very interesting if it could be ascertained what became of all those books that were sent down to the cellar and not used, over and above the number issued to private Members.
    Mr. W. H. JAMESpointed out to the hon. Baronet that he had not answered his question as to whether the Government would use its influence with Mr. Speaker with reference to those documents?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINwas very anxious to save the time of the Committee, and therefore hoped the hon. Baronet would answer the question. He (Mr. Chamberlain) had given Notice that the question would be raised by him at another time; but this would not be necessary if the question of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James) were replied to. Again, if Mr. Speaker consented, would the Government do what laid in their power to forward the proposal?
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had moved the reduction of this Vote because he had not received a satisfactory reply to his question; but an explanation, which was satisfactory to him, having been given, he asked leave to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONcould not pledge himself beforehand. He had said, that the subject should be again brought under the notice of Mr. Speaker, with whom the Treasury were in communication, with the view of reconsidering the whole of the printing of the House of Commons.
    MR. PARNELLhad omitted to make some remarks upon a very important
    354
    question. It would be remembered that a Division had been taken last Session against a portion of the Vote for the Stationery Department, on the ground that £271 of the money asked had been expended in stationery for the Queen's University in Ireland. It was the intention of the Irish Members to use their best exertions to prevent the Queen's University getting any money, directly or indirectly, from the House of Commons. He perceived that the present Vote was for a Supplemental Estimate of the amount required for the expense of stationery, printing, and books for several Departments in England, Ireland, and Scotland. Assuming that the Queen's University in Ireland was one of those Departments, he objected to the Vote.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary Bum, not exceeding £206, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very unwilling to introduce a personal question into the discussion of that Vote, and that which he was about to raise was more of a public than a personal character. He had no fault to find with the salaries paid to the officers of the Household; but there was an item of £150 per annum, appearing as an allowance to the Chaplain for an official residence. That allowance had very much the appearance of a job; and he rather fancied that it was but an increase to the Chaplain's salary, to enable him to pay an assistant. He merely wished for an explanation from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, as to whether the Chaplain of the Castle in Dublin ever did occupy any other than his own private house; and whether, in fact, it was not an addition to his salary, pure and simple, under the guise of supplying him with an official residence, of which he never made any use? They could understand that the Chaplain of the Castle did not desire to reside in his official residence, and that he might prefer to live in his own house; but what was the reason for granting him £150 a-year for the

    355
    loss of a thing for which he cared nothing? He would be glad to find that his idea was incorrect. As to the incidental expenses, it was his intention to take a Division against the whole Vote for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when it came on, because he thought that if Ireland was to be governed as a portion of England the Lord Lieutenancy ought to be abolished. He did not understand the principle that Ireland was to be governed as a portion of the United Kingdom, and still have the Lord Lieutenant as Representative of the Queen conducting the ceremonies of a mock Court. For his part, there was nobody who would be more rejoiced, if they had their own Parliament in Ireland, to see the Lord Lieutenant again carrying out his functions as Representative of Royalty; but so long as the badge of provincialism was affixed to Ireland, he thought it was only right to hold the English Government to its bargain. It had been a matter of regret, and considered as a remarkable fact, that no Representative of the Viceroy had waited upon Her Majesty, the Empress of Austria, when she honoured Ireland by landing on her shores, and this duty was left to be performed, as well as it might be, by the Lord Mayor of Dublin. He moved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £191.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that the Empress of Austria, on the occasion referred to, came to Ireland as a private person, which was the reason that no Representative of Her Majesty had waited upon her. With regard to the Chaplain of the Castle, the sum of £150 was paid by arrangement during the time his official residence was under repair.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, of course the reply of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) was to be taken as conclusive. It was, however, just what he had expected. Government were going to make an addition to the salary of the
    356
    Chaplain of £150 a-year, because it wag found that the official residence had fallen out of repair from not being used.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the real explanation was that there had been several cases of typhoid fever in the house, and the Chaplain had left in consequence. An inquiry had been held by the Board of Works, and they reported against the house being retained as an official residence, at the same time recommending an allowance to the Chaplain during the time that it was undergoing repairs.
    MR. PARNELLinquired if the Chaplain had been in the habit of residing in the house before that circumstance occurred?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that the Chaplain had resided in the house before the cases of fever had occurred.
    MR. M. BROOKSknew the Chaplain of the Castle to be one of those people who had taken a great interest in the condition of the public health in Ireland, and who would never shrink from any duty that properly fell upon him. He would certainly not leave his residence without a sufficient reason. He. (Mr. Brooks) appealed to his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.
    MAJOR NOLANwished to know whether the Chaplain was of the same religion as the Viceroy?
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Chaplain was of the same religion as the Viceroy. He had not been appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, but had held his office previously.
    MR. BIGGARwished to know whether, although the Church of Ireland had been disestablished and disendowed, the Dean was dependent upon the public funds?
    MR. PARNELLhad no personal feeling in the matter, but remarked that the item in question looked rather suspicious; and certainly the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) was neither happy nor fortunate. He was ready to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote; but, at the same time, he thought it would have been a better course for the Government to adopt, if they had put the Dean's house into a proper sanitary condition. That could have been done, probably, at very much less cost than the capital sum given by

    357
    way of allowance, and would not have had the effect of increasing his salary by a side wind.
    MR. MELDONsaid, the amount of disease about the Castle was scandalous to the country, and was the source of disease to those who were compelled to live in its precincts.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (15.) £390, Chief Secretary for Ireland, Offices.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he should oppose this Vote, although he should not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, and he would not trouble the Committee either with a long speech. His reason for opposing the Vote was that, in his opinion, Irish Members would get on better without a Chief Secretary for their country.
    Vote agreed to.
    (16.) £560, Public Works Office, Ireland.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked what the Government intended to do in regard to the Board of Works?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, this matter had been for some time under the serious consideration of the Government. After the receipt of the Report of the Committee which inquired into this matter they came to the conclusion that the Board of Works was undermanned, and that it would be desirable to increase the number of Commissioners to that originally intended. The Government also intended to bring in and pass, if possible, this Session, an Act to consolidate the whole of the Acts dealing with the duties and operations of the Board of Works. They proposed to amend certain of the functions of the Board, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and they intended to nominate a Member of the Government, a Member also of the Treasury, as an ex-officio member of the Board of Works, so that the Board might be represented directly in the House of Commons. He would sit as a member of the Board, and would, therefore, be aware of the action of the Board, and, at the same time, be a Representative of the Treasury. This was roughly the outline of the scheme which it was the intention of the Government
    358
    to propose with the view of carrying out some of the recommendations of the Committee. It might take some little time to put the scheme into definite shape; but he trusted that when it was finished and formulated a real amendment of the Board of Works would take place.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, this was so important a matter that he thought there ought to be a distinct and definite statement made by the Government going into the whole matter. Was the Government going to intrust to a Member of the Government the official representation of the Board of Works in that House, or were they going to recommend that there should be a responsible Minister, as had been recommended? If they did not state more clearly what they intended to do, he should be driven into entering on a discussion on this subject, though he did not wish to take that course. He was exceedingly anxious that nothing should be said that would be painful to the feelings of any member of the Board; but unless the Government took up this matter in a really serious way, and were prepared to investigate and deal with the Report of the Committee in a reasonable manner, he would be obliged to initiate a discussion which would be extremely painful to members of the Board. That Board had been responsible for a great deal of the feeling of dissatisfaction which at present existed in Ireland towards the English Government; and the Treasury ought, therefore, to be glad of the opportunity given them by the Report for showing that the good intentions of the English Government had been defeated only by the performance of the functions of this Board in Ireland.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould assure the hon. Gentleman that the Report and proceedings of the Committee had received the serious consideration of the Government. The Vote at present before the Committee was merely a Supplemental one for the works of last year; but he trusted that before the regular Vote came on for discussion in the ordinary course, the Government would be in a position to give a full explanation as to what would be done. The real cause of the weakness of the Board was that its duties had been increased, while its strength had been reduced. At the proper time he should

    359
    be prepared to state the proposals of the Government; but he thought it better not to enter into details of an arrangement which, as yet was not quite complete.
    MR. PARNELLconsidered that the Irish Members had grave grounds for complaint. The Committee reported a year ago. ["No, no!"] Well, nearly 10 months ago, and yet the Government proposals were still immature. They were now invited by the Government to defer the discussion of this question till the Irish Votes came on; but they knew very well that those Votes were never taken till August, when everybody was tired out. Therefore, he thought that Irish Members were wise to seize this—which was practically their only opportunity. If the Chief Secretary had only paid attention to this matter during the winter, as he ought to have done, he would have been prepared to state the Government proposals by this time.
    MR. J. LOWTHERbegged to remind the hon. Member that this matter belonged to the Treasury. He was not responsible for the Department of Works, and had nothing to do with it.
    MAJOR NOLANasked whether, in the course of the re-organization of the Department intended by the Government, any additional facilities would be afforded for giving effect to the Bright clauses of the Irish Land Act?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, admitted the importance of the question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the matter was at present under the consideration of the Government. He was not, however, at liberty to state at present what course would be taken with regard to it.
    MR. M. BROOKShoped the opposition to this Supplementary Vote would not be pressed. It was not only in Dublin that the Board of Works was under-manned and underpaid. This Vote intended, in some respects, to remedy the evil, and, if passed, was calculated to have a salutary effect.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the officials of the Board were overpaid, and he denied that they were overworked. He knew that of some of them; and though he would not go into the matter unless he were pressed, he would tell any hon. Member who chose to ask him. There was one man—Colonel M'Kerlie—who was notoriously unfit for his post.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he could not allow such a statement to pass unchallenged. Colonel M'Kerlie was a very valuable public servant; and, so far from being under worked, it was excess of zeal and the desire to do more than he was able which broke him down.
    MR. CALLANsaid, as he had been challenged to prove what he had said, he must do so. He would, therefore, give the Committee an instance of Colonel M'Kerlie's conduct. In 1870 an officer passed an examination for the inspection of the Boyne county. He passed the examination most creditably, and after calling on Colonel M'Kerlie, was asked to go into his room. He did not wish to make this personal statement, but for the wanton challenge of the Secretary to the Treasury. Colonel M'Kerlie asked him where he had been in the last year, and he said in Wexford. Colonel M'Kerlie said—"Well, and what have you been doing there?" Mr. Dodd said he had been with the Christian Brothers. Colonel M'Kerlie then said—"Oh! Are you a Roman Catholic?" To which Mr. Dodd replied "Yes." Within a week the appointment was cancelled. Mr. Chichester Fortescue was Chief Secretary at the time, and the case was represented to him, and he brought a Motion forward—which he did not persist in, however, for he was asked not to do so. The reason was that he got the appointment of the Christian Brother in another Department. He, however, had watched Colonel M'Kerlie's proceedings since; and he could say that, so far as the Irish Catholics were concerned, they looked upon Colonel M'Kerlie's conduct in regard to the Board of Works as bigoted in the extreme, and he had surrounded himself with a bigoted party. He must say, however, that he did not join in the dispraise of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. Whenever he had gone to him on business, he had found civility, cordiality, and willingness to oblige. He wished there were more officials of the same kind. At the same time, he was very sorry that he had not more influence over the Irish Board of Works. Would the new official have such control, or would he be a mere ornamental feature?
    MAJOR O'GORMANsaid, in consequence of what he had observed, he

    361
    would be en ungrateful person if he did not publicly acknowledge the great kindness and politeness with which he had been treated by the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury—he did not know whether he was a right hon. or not. He went to his office one day, accompanied by the noble Lord the Member for the County of Waterford (Lord Charles Beresford) and by his hon. Colleague the Member for the City of Waterford (Mr. R. Power). He happened to be the first to enter the room, and he asked the hon. Baronet for £40.000 for creating a dry dock for Waterford, and within three days the hon. Baronet gave him the £40,000. Now, that was a positive fact, and a somewhat remarkable fact. That was to say, they had not actually got the £40,000. It was certain the board could draw upon it whenever they liked; but his friends in Waterford had not yet drawn a single shilling of it, although it was advanced on the 31st of July, 1878. Now, that was not the fault of the hon. Baronet, and it was not his (Major O'Gorman's) fault; because he remembered he was hurried to the Treasury on a hot July day in the most dreadful manner; but at that moment not one single shilling, so graciously vouchsafed to them in the most handsome manner by the hon. Baronet—whom he begged leave distinctly at that moment, if he had not done so before, as he believed he had, to thank most sincerely—had been spent upon the dry dock at Waterford. He was ashamed to say that he rather thought that the hon. Baronet might call upon him to restore the money which had not been spent. He might ask—"What are you about? Why don't you go on with your dry dock at Waterford?" And he could not give them an answer to that question. He could not, indeed. They had a Harbour Board at Waterford, and a very handsome board. He never saw anything so remarkably handsome as the room in which they sat—it could not have been better if the £40,000 had been spent upon it; but they had not done a single thing towards the dry dock—even through the winter, when work was wanted in Waterford—although the money was granted to them in July, 1878, by the generosity of the hon. Baronet.
    MAJOR NOLANasked if the general constitution of the Board would be submitted to the House, and whether they would have an opportunity of voting on the new salaries?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, a statement would be made to the House when the arrangements were made; and whenever the Estimates were brought forward, there would be an opportunity of challenging any salaries that might be proposed.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREwould like to know whether the new officer would be under the Treasury or under the Chief Secretary?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that the new officer would be attached to the Treasury, and would have special charge of the business connected with the Board of Works.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1879, for the Salaries of the Law Officers; the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Solicitor for the Affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Queen's Proctor for Divorce Interventions; the Costs of Prosecutions, including those relating to the Coin, and to Bankruptcy, and of other Legal Proceedings conducted by those Departments; and various other Legal Expenses, including Statute Law Revision, and Parliamentary Agency."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  EXCHEQUER BONDS (No. 1) BILL.
  (Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  EXCHEQUER BONDS (No. 1) BILL.

    [BILL 92.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, that before they passed that Bill for second reading, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain that he was intending to make provision for a portion of this money, so that they might not goon from year to year borrowing on renewed Bills of this kind. Under this Bill, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose—which he did not believe he wished to—he could, before the expiration of another 12 months, bring in another Bill of this kind, thus carrying on this heavy debt another year. He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to disclose his Budget, though the country was anxiously awaiting it; but he did ask for some intimation that steps would be taken to provide for it. He was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman had great difficulties to meet as to the loans to be made up, on account of the demands upon him for South Africa. He remembered that last Session the right hon. Gentleman had promised a statement as to how the expenses for South African affairs would be met; but they had never obtained any statement of the kind. He was good enough to say, early in the year, that it would be a question of distribution between the Imperial Government and the Cape Government, but was not then able to say in what proportion. He afterwards stated, however, that the money would first be supplied by England. The House would be glad to know what proportion the Cape Government would bear in the expenditure?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this subject was a very important one. He had not the matter in his hands at the moment which would enable him to give the hon. Member the full statement, and he would prefer not to give him a mutilated one. In bringing in the Budget he would be prepared to make a complete statement. As to the provision to be made for these Bonds, what was now proposed by the Bill was simply to enable them to meet Exchequer Bonds immediately falling due, which, of course, could not be dishonoured. He proposed to renew those Bonds for a period of 12 months; but, further, he could not at that time indicate what his other proposals would be. At the usual time, however, it would, of course, be entirely in the hands of the House to assent or not.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, the fact remained that they were giving the Government power to issue Exchequer Bonds running to the end of the year.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  RACECOURSES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  (Mr. Anderson, Sir Thomas Chambers, Sir James Lawrence.)
  RACECOURSES (METROPOLIS) BILL.

    [BILL 48.] COMMITTEE.
    [Progress Clause 1, 17 th February.]
    Order for Committee read.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1 (Definitions) agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Horse-races unlawful within 10 miles of London unless licensed).
    MR. CALLANbegged to report Progress. He did not think that at 10 minutes past 1 such a Bill should be rushed through the House, and that further time should be given for consideration. He had no doubt that the Bill would meet with the support of the Scotch Presbyterians; but he (Mr. Callan) belonged to a religion which did not exact such sacrifices, and contributed to the amusement of the people. He regarded the Bill as an act of barbarism, inasmuch as it limited their enjoyments. He trusted it would never pass into law.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Callan.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the House would be allowed to go on with the Bill, which had been before it a very long time, although it had come forward very late in the evening. He was quite as strongly in favour of retaining all the rational amusements of the people as the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), and as long as he had any power would do all he could to promote them. He only spoke in the interest of public order, when he said that had not people seen that these

    365
    races were conducted in an improper manner the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would not have brought forward the Bill. But the races in question had not been conducted with proper decency.
    MR. GOSCHENsuggested that the House should finish the Bill, and was glad that the Home Secretary had opposed the Motion of the hon. Member, because he had thereby removed the impression of some hon. Members on his side of the House, who thought they observed other Members leaving and contributing to the risk of a "Count-out."
    MR. CALLANdid not think that the sensibility of the right hon. Gentleman should be so marked; for although he had been an official of the Government for the last 10 years, he (Mr. Callan) had never found him lend his assistance to the proprieties of life by putting down Cremorne or the Argyll Rooms.
    MAJOR O'GORMANwas quite astonished at the wonderful virtue which was assumed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on that occasion. Of course, he freely granted him the possession of the utmost virtue; but when he told them that all the virtue of racing in England was concentrated by the abolition of racing at two or three wretched meetings in the immediate vicinity of London, all he could say was that he did not agree with the proposition. If the right hon. Gentleman wished the country to become perfectly virtuous, he ought to put down all racing. He (Major O'Gorman) was inclined to the belief that the Bill ought to take a larger scope. The Derby ought to be put down—there was no doubt about that. Every vice that could be imagined had full scope at the Derby; and, doubtless, every vice had full scope at those two or three Metropolitan races. Why should they have been singled out for prohibition? What was the reason that their legislation did not go further and higher, and in a more virtuous direction?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 2; Noes 63: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 37.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Power to justices to license at Michaelmas Quarter Sessions) agreed to.
    Clause 4 (Mode of making application for licence) agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Penalty on persons taking part in unlicensed horse-races) agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Penalty on owners and occupiers of ground where unlicensed horse-races take place) agreed to.
    Clause 7 (Unlicensed horse-races to be deemed a nuisance, and liable accordingly) agreed to.
    Clause 8 (Exemption in favour of long existing horse-race meetings).
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I am bound to say that I do not like this clause, and think it ought to be altered. I move that this clause be struck out.
    MR. ANDERSONhad no objection to the striking out of the clause.
    Clause struck out.
    Clause 9 (Short title) agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.
    MR. ONSLOWgave Notice that on the Report he should move that the Bill be considered that day six months.

MOTION.
  COMMONS.

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Stephen Cave be a Member of the Select Committee on Commons."—(Sir Matthew Ridley.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Assizes* (17).
SOUTH AFRICA—SIR BARTLE FRERE AND MR. JOUBERT.—QUESTION.

  OBSEBVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I beg to ask a Question of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, of which I have given him private Notice. I read in the papers this morning what purported to be Minutes of what had occurred between Sir Bartle Frere and Mr. Joubert, who formerly held the office of President in the Transvaal. I should be glad to know if these Minutes

  265
  are authentic? For my own part, I should be sorry to think that they express correctly the state of feeling among the whole, or even a large portion of the Dutch population, whether it be in the Transvaal, in the neighbouring Orange Free State, or in the Cape, the most influential of all. On the contrary, I cannot help thinking that in many parts of that Continent there exists a very different feeling. I would also ask my noble Friend—though I do not anticipate that he will be able to give an official answer—Whether it is true, as I see it stated with great satisfaction in this morning's papers, that the Chief Magistrate of the Orange Free State has either proffered or undertaken to send us no less than 500 men to our support in the Zulu War? I was well acquainted with the Chief Magistrate of the Orange Free State when he was in this country two years ago, and I was very much impressed with his steadfast, truthful character; and I shall not be at all surprised to hear that he has proffered us 500 men. It will be very satisfactory to know that that is the case, not only as regards himself, but also as affording evidence of the state of feeling in the Orange Free State, and as affording evidence of the state of feeling among a most influential portion of the Dutch population.
  EARL CADOGAN, in reply, said, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies had received an account of the interview between Sir Bartle Frere and Mr. Joubert similar to that which his noble Friend had mentioned as having appeared in the newspapers, but it had reached the Secretary of State unofficially. He thought his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) would agree with him that, in these circumstances, his right hon. Friend was justified in withholding that account from the Papers about to be presented to Parliament; and probably his noble Friend would be satisfied with the assurance that as soon as the official account of the interview had been received, it would be included in the Papers to be laid on the Table of their Lordships' House. He had just laid on the Table Papers relating to South Africa received up to yesterday. He might further mention that two telegrams had been that day received at the Colonial Office through the Brazilian Telegraph Company in these terms—
  266
  "Following transports arrived St. Vincent:—5th, Olympus, 1.55 p.m.; Queen Margaret, 7.30 p.m.; 6th, City of Venice, 6 a.m.; Russia, 7.30 a.m.
  "Transports China and Florence arrived St. Vincent 9 a.m. 6th."
  This intelligence showed that the transport service was working favourably. As to the second part of the noble Earl's Question, he was unable to give any official confirmation of the report.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he did not mean in his Question official information, but any information.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, he was not able to give his noble Friend any further information.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not see what was the objection to the publication of the unofficial account of the interview between Sir Bartle Frere and Mr. Joubert, received at the Colonial Office, if, as he understood from the noble Earl, it was similar to the account which appeared in the newspapers.

RAILWAYS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF BELMORErose to call attention to the present position of the subject of the use of continuous brakes upon Railways, and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they propose to introduce any Bill to deal with the matter during the present Session? He would remind their Lordships that the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, which reported about this time two years ago, paid particular attention to the matter of "continuous brakes;" and that a series of trials, at their request, was made in the year 1875, near Newark, to which the principal English Railway Companies sent trains, and at which experiments were made with different kinds of continuous brakes. The result of these inquiries was that the Commissioners in their Report recommended that Railway Companies should be required by law, under adequate penalties, to supply all trains with sufficient brake power to stop them within 500 yards under all circumstances. In making that recommendation, the Commissioners refrained advisedly from mentioning any particular kind of brake; but they suggested what at the time seemed to be a reasonable distance (500 yards) within which all trains should be stopped. To have done otherwise would

  267
  have been to discourage improvements in brakes. The result had proved the wisdom of the recommendation. On page 105 of the Report would be found the result of experiments with seven different continuous brakes, using all available brake and other power, including sand. The shortest stop obtained was with a train of the Midland Company, weighing over 200 tons, and travelling 51½ miles an hour; the distance in which the train was stopped was 275 yards; the time was 18 seconds. The brake was the Westinghouse air brake. Last year a series of experiments were made on the Brighton line by Mr. Westinghouse and Captain Douglas Galton, when a stop was obtained by a train travelling 50 miles an hour in 119 yards and 10¼ seconds. An interesting account of these experiments was contained in The Times of August 30. As the weight of the train was not given, nor the particular kind of brake used mentioned—although he presumed it was the Westinghouse air brake—he could not make an exact comparison; but, at any rate, very considerable progress had been made in the three years, the distance within which a stop could be made being reduced more than a half. Although the Government had not acted upon the Commissioners' recommendation, yet in August, 1877, the Board of Trade called the attention of Railway Companies to the matter of continuous brakes, and to a correspondence which had lately taken place between the Board and the Railway Association relative to the use of such brakes; and in the course of this letter the Board laid down the conditions which, in their opinion, were essential to a good continuous brake. After saying that there had been apparently no attempt on the part of the Companies to agree upon the requirements of a good continuous brake, they went on to say—
  "In the opinion of the Board of Trade these conditions should be as follows:—

  "(a.) The brakes to be efficient in stopping trains, instantaneous in their action, and capable of being applied without difficulty by engine-drivers or guards.

  "(b.) In case of accident to be instantaneously self-acting.

  "(c.) The brakes to be put on and taken off (with facility) on the engine and every vehicle of a train.

  "(d.) The brakes to be regularly used in daily working.

  268

  "(e.) The materials employed to be of a durable character, so as to be easily maintained and kept in order.

  "The inquiries and experiments instituted by the Royal Commission on Railway Accidents, and the recent researches into the causes of railway accidents during the last few years, appear to the Board of Trade to leave no doubt as to the importance of the above conditions, and the experience which has been obtained by the companies appears sufficient to enable them to come to some general and unanimous conclusion. There can, therefore, be no reason for further delay, and the Board of Trade feel it their duty again to urge upon the railway companies the necessity for arriving at an immediate decision and united action in the matter."
  Further Returns were laid before Parliament last year, by which it appeared that no unanimous opinion had been arrived at among the Railway Companies. The Government introduced and passed an Act last Session—Continuous Brakes Act, 1878—compelling Railway Companies to make a periodical Return respecting the use of continuous brakes on their passenger trains, and it was to the first Return that he now wished to call their Lordships' attention. On page 4 of that Paper would be found an abstract showing the description of continuous brakes in use, the amount of stock fitted, and the mileage run with each description of brake. The result was that there was yet no uniformity, and there was still a great deal to be done. Only 16 per cent of the engines and 21 per cent of the carriages were fitted with these brakes at all; while only three out of a much larger number of brakes complied with the requirements of the Board of Trade Circular. If these requirements were to be carried out by legislation, surely it would be better to do so before more stock was fitted with a wrong kind of brake. He was not for undue interference with Railway Companies; but he thought that the 500 yards recommended by the Royal Commission might now be materially shortened, and that the Board of Trade conditions should be insisted on. He understood that men employed on railways regarded this question of brakes as possessing an interest only second to that of compensation for injuries they might sustain during the course of their employment—and certainly it was a question of great importance to the public. The Railway Commissioners recommended that there should be an appeal from the Board of

  269
  Trade to some other tribunal. The noble Earl at the head of the Government objected to that, and he admitted that there was force in the objection, because it was an awkward thing to have an appeal from a Department of the Government. But, on the other hand, the Railway Commissioners felt it hard on Railway Companies that, without being heard by counsel or otherwise, they should be condemned to a considerable expenditure. The difficulty might, perhaps, be met by the establishment of a tribunal before whom an officer of the Board of Trade might appear as prosecutor. One of the Commissioners thought there might be a special tribunal to act as between Railway Companies and the public. As he had already said, he entertained an objection against undue interference with Railway Companies in the management of their own concerns; but he thought the powers of the Board of Trade might be extended, so as to enable it to deal more effectually with this brake question. The year before last he moved a Standing Order on the subject; and his noble Friend the President of the Council held out the hope that the matter would be dealt with in a general measure. He did not now expect a Bill specially applicable to it, but there were rumours of a general Bill, and he hoped to hear that in its provisions would be included enactments having reference to continuous brakes.
  LORD NORTONsaid, that as he, thinking that the subject was not yet ripe for legislation, had commenced the conference between the Board of Trade and the Railway Association, he wished to say a few words. The conference to which he referred led to the Board of Trade issuing to every Company Circulars, in August, 1877, and to the short Act of last Session for obtaining Returns, and, consequently, to the Returns now before Parliament. The subject was important, not only for the safety of the public, but also in relation to the expeditious conveyance of goods and the effectiveness of signal arrangements. The art of increasing speed had outstripped the art of stopping. The problem how best to stop 100 tons weight running 60 miles an hour was slowly working out, and nothing should be done to check experiment, but every freedom should be allowed to promote it. Parliament, there-
  270
  fore, had been asked by no one to interfere in the way of prescribing the best kind of brake to be adopted for railways; because to do so would be to check improvement, and to relieve the undertakers from the sense of responsibility. But Parliament could, at all events, insist upon the five essential qualities of brakes recommended in the Circular Letter of 1877—that they should be continuous, automatic, instantaneous, in constant use, and of strong material. The first requirement for expediting improvement was constant publication of what was being done, and for that the short Act of last Session, and consequent Returns, were sufficient. Uniformity of brake was most desirable—that not only the best, but the same should be used for all, both for interchange of rolling stock between one line and another, and more especially when two or more lines were continuous; but it was doubtful if uniformity was yet possible. The Returns showed as yet but slow improvement and many failures. Prom the last Return it appeared that there were still only 16 per cent of the engines and 21 per cent of the passenger carriages fitted with continuous brakes. The fact was there was a money interest in each invention. If it were enacted that no brake should be considered sufficient which had not the five qualities stipulated for in the Circular, the responsibility for any accident from want of brake power would fall on a Company using brakes without those qualities.
  LORD HENNIKERsaid, their Lordships would agree with him in saying that his noble Friend had done good service in bringing this question before the House. It was one of importance; great interest was taken in it both inside and outside Parliament, and, no doubt, in this—as in all questions connected with railway working—the expression of public opinion and discussions in Parliament had a great effect upon the Railway Companies; for experience had shown that, in the end, the best system was generally adopted. Railway Companies were naturally rather slow to adopt any system which involved a large expenditure; and particularly where a change in the working arrangements would also be necessary, although the Companies were themselves equally, if not more interested

  271
  than anyone in adopting the best systems of working their traffic. He did not think he need trouble their Lordships with any lengthened remarks on the present occasion, because last year, in a discussion raised by his noble Friend the noble Earl behind him (Earl De La Warr), he had gone fully into the question; but he should be glad to remind the House of the action which had been taken in the matter. For many years the Inspecting Officers of the Board of Trade had reported that more efficient brake power was necessary on passenger trains. In January, 1877, a Letter was addressed by the Board of Trade to the Railway Companies' Association. As progress in the desired direction was slow, a Circular Letter was addressed to all the Railway Companies in August of the same year. This Letter was printed in the Paper issued that morning. It spoke for itself, and showed clearly the opinion of the Department, and how strongly they had urged the Companies to adopt some good system of brakes. The replies to this Circular were printed last Session. They did not show that rapid progress was being made by the Companies; but still great progress had been made since January, 1877. The Board of Trade, however, did not then think it desirable to interfere by legislating on the subject. The difficulties were great, and must be overcome before any general system was agreed upon; for instance, the recommendation of the Royal Commission, referred to by the noble Earl—that every train should, in all circumstances, be pulled up easily in 500 yards. Would it be possible for the Board of Trade to see such a provision carried out? Again, it was undesirable to lay down that only one particular brake should be used, as this would prevent the Companies from availing themselves of any improvements which might be made. However, he stated at the time that it might be wise to pass a short Act of Parliament to require Returns to be sent in every six months to the Board of Trade by all the Railway Companies as to the progress they were making in fitting their engines and carriages with brakes. It was thought that it would be desirable to introduce such a measure by many noble Lords who took an interest in railway matters, and it was brought in and passed. The Board of
  272
  Trade were encouraged in the hope that this Act would have a good effect by the result which a similar Act, relating to the block and interlocking system, passed in 1873—the Regulation of Railways Act—had had in inducing the Railway Companies to adopt that system. The Return issued to-day was the result of that Act. He was sorry to see that the amount of stock fitted with continuous brakes during the last six months to December 31, 1878, was not very large; but still some progress was being made, and he hoped the Act might prove to be as useful a one as the Act of 1873—at all events, the Return was a useful one. That Return brought the question up to the present time, as far as regarded the action of the Board of Trade. It would not be right for him to go further into the question at the present time. He had merely stated these few facts, that what had been done might be clearly before the House; and to show that the Board of Trade had been alive to the necessity of a better system of brake power, and had not been inactive in pressing the subject on the attention of the Railway Companies. His reason for not wishing to go further into details was this:—Their Lordships would recollect that on the re-assembling of Parliament it was stated that Her Majesty's Government were about to introduce a measure to deal with the Railway Commission, whose powers expired at the end of this Session of Parliament. The noble Viscount who presided over the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon) thought, very properly, that disjointed statements made at different times and in different places as to the various subjects connected with the working of railways were inconvenient, and probably misleading. Viscount Sandon proposed before long to introduce the Bill to which he had referred in the House of Commons, and he would then take the opportunity of stating fully the opinions of the Government as to the question now before their Lordships, and several other subjects of interest and importance in railway management.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that the subject was a very important one, and he was glad to find that the Board of Trade had taken it up. The progress they had made in it was not very satisfactory, for the Returns showed that the

  273
  use of continuous brake power had not been adopted as it ought to be; but it seemed that the action of the Board of Trade had stirred up the Railway Companies, and there was reason to hope that their efforts would lead to some result. It was satisfactory to know that Her Majesty's Government would use its influence in the matter; and he hoped that the Railway Companies would themselves make further experiments, and come to some agreement among themselves as to the best form of brake to be employed.

ARMY REGULATIONS—NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, under existing Regulations, a non-commissioned officer in the Regular Army is liable to be called upon to perform any other duties connected with a brigade, depot, or sub-district, than those of the Militia regiment to the permanent staff, of which he had been attached for probationary duty only during the non-training period?
VISCOUNT BURYsaid, in answer to his noble Friend, that Circular 101 of 1877 made no difference between the two classes of men.
House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.