Sitting of 5 May 1879

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Customs and Inland Revenue Laws—Resolution.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Poor Law (Provisional Orders) *

1707
[155]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Axminster Union, &c.) * [154]; Courts of Justice Building Act (1865) Amendment * [156].
Second Reading—Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) [117]; Marriages Confirmation (Her Majesty's Ships) [149].
Committee—Game Laws Amendment (Scotland) [143]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) * [118–153]; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) * [125]; Convention (Ireland) Act Repeal (No. 2) * [116].
Considered as amended—Prosecution of Offences [147].
Third Reading—Companies Acts Amendment * [102], and passed.

PETITION.
  INDIA—BRITISH INDIAN ASSOCIATION, CALCUTTA.

    PETITION PRESENTED.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have to present a Petition from a meeting of the British Indian Association at Calcutta. I shall not ask to have it read at the Table; but I may say that those from whom it emanates state that it has been frequently their privilege, on the invitation of the Indian Government, to offer advice and suggestion regarding public measures and public policy. The Petition relates to the charges for the Afghan War. Its authors decline to discuss the policy of that war, but they greatly regret the imposition of its charge on India, and point out that the Military Establishments of India, instead of being a burden to this country, have, as they conceive, frequently offered positive assistance to this country, and that on several occasions which they enumerate, from 1842 to 1867, Indian troops have been brought, for European purposes, beyond the limits, strictly so-called, of India. They then quote the language which they understand has been used by the Prime Minister in Parliament, to the effect that he considered the Afghan question as a question which concerned the character and influence of England in Europe, and they add that they think it hard that India should be called on to pay for a war which has to do with the character and influence of England in Europe. They state that this money, out of which the expense of the war is to be met in the first instance, is money already pledged, according to the words of the Finance Minister, to be religiously ap-
    1708
    plied as a Famine Fund. They likewise state that it is not only the prime cost of the war which they regret, but that they are full of apprehension of a future charge, and that the question of a subsequent cost of maintaining the fruits of the war has caused consternation among them; for not only had 15,000 men been added to the Army, but it was impossible to say what additions will have to be made to the Military Establishment of India for the security of the new Frontier. I have no doubt the Petition will receive the best attention of the Committee on Petitions.
    Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

QUESTIONS.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Sir Alfred Power has resigned his office as President of the Local Government Board in Ireland; and, if so, whether, in consideration of the importance of the subject to the wellbeing of the Country, the Government will pause before making a permanent appointment, and consider the expediency of so far uniting the Local Government Board and the Board of Works as to place at their head a Member of the Government to represent the departments in Parliament?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for the Lord Lieutenant, who is himself, I believe, President of the Local Government Board, that Sir Alfred Power has resigned the Office of Vice President, and that Mr. Robinson has been nominated for it. I believe that the appointment to be made will be of a satisfactory character. At all events, I think we need not interfere with the proceedings of the Government in endeavouring to deal with the important question to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Sir, in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give Notice that I shall take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the scandalous haste with which this appointment has been filled up.

  EGYPT—THE CABINET—DISMISSAL OF MR. RIVERS WILSON AND M. DE BLIGNIERES—ACTION OF THE CONTROLLERS.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICE (for Mr. SACKVILLE)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the agreement by which, if the English and French Members of the Egyptian Cabinet were dismissed without the sanction of England and France, the control instituted by the decree of November 1876 was, ipso facto, to revive, Whether he can inform the House that this arrangement has now taken effect; and, if so, who are the two controllers appointed?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, the control has been revived on the part of the Egyptian Government; but Major Baring and Monsieur Bellaigne de Bughas have refused to act.

  TURKEY—RUSSIAN AUTHORITIES IN EASTERN ROUMELIA.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. HANBURYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that, in spite of the strong protest of the English Chief Commissioner, a Turkish subject, inhabiting a Turkish province, has been sentenced by the Russian authorities in Eastern Roumelia to banishment from that province and exile in Siberia; whether he was so sentenced for having been the principal author of a Petition which was presented to the Commission by the English Chief Commissioner; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have made any representations to the Government of Russia on this subject; and, if so, with what result?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I do not think, from the documents which we have, that the facts are quite as they are presented in his Question; but, at the same time, I am not prepared to contradict his statement. It appears that for alleged falsification of a Petition, as mentioned by my hon. Friend, a man was sentenced to banishment to Siberia. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the Russian Commander-in-Chief was incompetent to pronounce that sentence, it being upon a Turkish subject in Turkey. Therefore, representations were made to Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, to the Russian Government, and that sentence has been commuted.
  MR. HANBURY: Commuted to what?
  MR. BOURKE: That we have not heard.

  QUEEN'S PLATES (IRELAND).

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence which led to the transfer of the Queen's Plate from Derry to Galway?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I shall be very happy to show the hon. and learned Gentleman the Correspondence he refers to; but as a good many of the communications which passed were verbal, and would, therefore, not appear in print, he will probably agree with me that it would hardly be desirable to lay the Papers upon the Table.
    MR. SULLIVAN: Would the right hon. Gentleman state with whom the communications were made? I may say I am not in the slightest degree acquainted with these horsey matters.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The communications took place mainly between the Master of the Horse, the Irish Government, and the Corporation of Derry.

  ARMY—COMMITTEE ON SERVICE OF OFFICERS UNDER AGE.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL ARBUTHNOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the service of Officers under twenty years of age and other matters has made its report; and, whether he will lay that Report upon the Table of the House?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY, in reply, said, the Committee had made its Report. The Report had not yet been submitted to the Secretary of State for War; but he had every reason to believe that as soon as this step had been taken the document would be laid upon the Table of the House.

  POOR LAW—CATHOLIC PAUPERS IN WALSALL WORKHOUSE.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the President of the Local Government Board, If it is true, as stated in the local newspapers, that a Catholic pauper inmate of Walsall workhouse named James Hawkins, whose

  1711
  son, a soldier, was now serving in the Afghan war, was recently allowed to die in the house without the consolations of religion, the master having neglected to send for a clergyman, as was his duty; if the same master, about the time when Hawkins lay dying, prevented the attendant Catholic clergyman from visiting a sick inmate named Blake, because of an altercation which Blake's wife had had with some of the officers, but of which circumstance the clergyman had no cognisance whatever; and, if these statements are substantially true, what notice he proposes to take of such conduct on the part of a workhouse master?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Sir, I have made inquiries into the matter, and find it is true that a pauper Catholic recently died in Walsall Workhouse without the consolations of religion; but it can hardly be said that the master neglected his duty, as he was not bound to send for a priest under the consolidated Orders, unless the pauper required it. I do not say he ought not to have sent for a priest; but it is fair to add that a few days before the man died he was told that a priest was in the house, but he declined to see him. It is also time that an altercation took place between the matron and the priest. The wife wanted to visit her husband during the prohibited hours, and when she was not allowed to visit him she sent the priest; but as the priest did not come within the regulations of the house he was not admitted. The matron was not justified in refusing to admit the priest. I have received a communication from the governor of the house, which says that, so far from there being any desire to interfere with the Roman Catholic clergy, every facility consistent with the rules of the house was afforded them.
  MR. SULLIVAN: Might I ask if the Guardians have reproved the matron?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I do not know whether they have reproved her.

  ISLAND OF CYPRUS—FORCED LABOUR.

    QUESTION.
    MR. GOLDNEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, with reference to the assurance he gave to make certain inquiries relative to forced labour and the administration of the Law and other mat-
    1712
    ters relative to Cyprus, he has received any Report from Sir Garnet Wolseley on the subject; and, if so, whether he will lay such Report upon the Table?
    MR. BOURKE: Yes, Sir. Reports upon this subject from Sir Garnet Wolseley were received some time ago and are being printed. As the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) brought the representations which were the subject of these Reports before the House, it will possibly be satisfactory to him that he should move for them himself. If he does move for them I shall have no objection to their production. If, however, the hon. Baronet does not wish to move for them, then it will be open to the hon. Member for Chippenham to do so.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEgave Notice that he would move for the Reports to-morrow.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.

    QUESTION.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland to state, To whom is the appeal of a sub-constable in the Royal Irish Constabulary from an unjust or harsh decision sent back for investigation to ascertain if it is groundless or frivolous; has the county inspector discretionary powers, and within what limit, for the infliction of fines; and, is it a fact that the right of appeal is seldom exercised in consequence of its being considered by the authorities a bar to promotion?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The appeal to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers is to be made to the County Inspector. The County Inspector has a discretionary power of fining up to the amount of 10 s.; but he has to make Reports periodically to the Inspector-General with regard to all cases in which he has exercised that power. With respect to the other point to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers, it is the case that the right of appeal is not often exercised; but it is not the fact that it constitutes any bar to promotion.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNE: Sir, in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I beg to give Notice that in Committee of Supply I shall move the reduction of salary of County Inspector of Sligo by £120.

  SIR BARTLE FRERE—LETTER OF THE QUEEN.—QUESTION.
  MR. HUTCHINSONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House any information respecting the correctness or otherwise of a statement in the "Daily News," of May 2nd, and alleged to be copied from the "Cape Argus," to the effect that the Queen has written an autograph letter to Lady Frere, expressing Her Majesty's confidence in Sir Bartle Frere?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I have not soon this statement, and I can give the House no information with respect to it.

  TURKEY—ASIA MINOR—CONSULAR APPOINTMENTS.—QUESTIONS.
  MR. J. HOLMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that a number of appointments have already been made, or are about to be made, of additional Consuls General, Consuls, or other officials to fill various places in Asia Minor; and, if so, will he inform the House what these places and appointments are and the salaries attached to them?
  MR. BOURKE: Yes; it is true that Consular appointments are about to be made in Anatolia. The appointments are not yet completed; but when they are, if the hon. Member will move for a list of the appointments, he can have it as an unopposed Return.
  MR. J. HOLMSasked, Would it be possible to furnish a statement of the appointments before the House proceeded in Committee to consider Class 5 of the Estimates?
  MR. BOURKE: I have no doubt they will be laid upon the Table before we come to Class 5.
  MR. CHILDERS: There will be, of course, Supplementary Estimates?
  MR. BOURKE: No; certainly not. I am not aware that there will be any Supplementary Estimates in respect of these appointments.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that as it was not proposed to provide for the new appointments in Anatolia by Supplementary Estimates, he wished to know in what manner it was proposed to provide for them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As far as I know, from the
  1714
  Treasury point of view, the Estimate covers the new appointments. The new appointments will be to a considerable extent balanced by a diminution of the charge in other cases.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—SIR BARTLE FRERE'S INSTRUCTIONS.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If, in reference to a statement of the Colonial Secretary that the disaster at Isandlana must be retrieved, and to the statement of the Government in Despatches now upon the Table of the House that no annexation of Zulu territory is contemplated, he will inform the House if any instructions have been sent to Sir Bartle Frere—or to any other person, if Sir Bartle Frere's hands are tied—as to conditions of peace; and whether the time has not now come, after successes over and the slaughter of some thousands of the Zulu forces, when a pacification may be hoped for by the offer of some reasonable term of peace to the Zulu King?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to promote an early and reasonable pacification in South Africa, and they have furnished Sir Bartle Frere with instructions, both positive and negative, such as are, in their opinion, most calculated to bring about a satisfactory result.
    Afterwards—
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I should like to ask another Question. I understood the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to say that instructions had been sent to Sir Bartle Frere with regard to the terms of peace. I also understood, and I think other hon. Members did so too, that the public were informed in "another place" last Friday that no definite instructions had been sent on that matter to Sir Bartle Frere, and that they had not been sent out because no answer had been received from him to a despatch which was sent out by the Government some time ago. I therefore beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether such answer has been received; and, also, if he can state the date of the instructions that have been sent?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, no answer has been received to the communications in question, and what I intended to convey to the House is this—that instructions have been sent out to Sir Bartle Frere, both negative as to what he was not to do as to the policy of annexation and other things of that sort, and positive as to the object which he was to aim at in taking steps to preserve the British Colonies from the danger by which they have been threatened by the overwhelming power of the Zulu force. These instructions have been given in a manner which perfectly indicates to Sir Bartle Frere what are the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject; but at the present moment I cannot tell the precise terms of the instructions.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: May I ask, has the despatch which the right hon. Gentleman refers to been laid upon the Table of the House?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: One despatch has not been laid on the Table of the House—a later despatch.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman object to give the date of that despatch?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is dated the 10th of April.
    MR. SULLIVANwished to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Department, Whether it is true, as reported in the public newspapers, that on the occasion of a messenger from the Zulu Army bearing a flag of truce to Colonel Pearson, the flag of truce was disregarded and the bearer of it made a prisoner?
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: Sir, the statement is entirely new to me, and, therefore, it is impossible for me to say either aye or no to it; but I can hardly credit it.
    MR. RICHARDgave Notice that he would, to-morrow, ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether there was any truth in the statement that the Zulu messenger to Colonel Pearson, carrying a flag of truce, had been put in irons as a spy under the advice of a missionary?

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—THE SELECT COMMITTEE.—QUESTIONS.
  SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is now prepared to nomi-
  1716
  nate the Select Committee on the Contagious Diseases Acts?
  MR. J. TREMAYNEasked, Whether it is proposed to give powers to the Committee to extend its inquiry with reference to these Acts, so that they may be extended to the principal seaports at present unprotected?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY, in reply, said, it was proposed to nominate the Select Committee at once, which would consist of 15 Members, 10 to be chosen in the usual way, and five to be selected by the Committee of Selection. The terms of the Reference would be placed on the Notice Paper in the course of the next day or two. The object was to secure the most impartial tribunal on this somewhat difficult subject. As to the Question put by his hon. Friend the Member for East Cornwall (Mr. J. Tremayne), he was afraid he could not give an answer to it now; but if his hon. Friend would repeat his Question, it should be answered.

  ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.

    QUESTION.
    MR. MUNDELLAasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has appointed a Committee to inquire into the grievances of the workers in the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico; and, if so, whether he will state to the House the persons composing the Committee, and will furnish their Report when completed; and, when he will lay upon the Table of the House, as promised, the new and old scale of wages paid in the Clothing Factory, and the changes made in the regulations of that establishment?
    LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Sir, a small Committee of three Gentlemen, over whom the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) has consented to preside, are about to inquire into the recent grievances of the operatives in the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico. The Committee will report for the information of the Secretary of State and of myself, and it will be for further consideration hereafter whether the Report shall be made public or not. As I said on a previous occasion, there will be no objection to laying upon the Table of the House the old and new scales of wages paid in the Clothing Factory; and the proper time for doing that, I think, will be when the inquiry has taken place.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSION—THE TWENTY-SIXTH REPORT.

    QUESTION.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the twenty-sixth Report of the Charity Commissioners, in which they complain of the defects in the Charity Laws; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to re-introduce, at an early date, the Charitable Trusts Bill which was brought into the Upper House in July last?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the matter, and he hoped it might be possible to introduce some measure on the subject.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSION—PROPOSED SCHEME FOR DEFRAYING EXPENSES.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the proposed scheme for defraying part of the expenses of the Charity Commission has received the approval of the Board of Commissioners or emanates from one or more of its individual members; when it is proposed to put it in force; and, if a Copy of it, together with the Correspondence relating to the subject, will be laid before Parliament?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, he had been asked by his right hon. Friend to answer this Question. The proposed scheme, as he stated in the discussion the other evening, was a sketch scheme of his own. It was submitted to the Commissioners, and embodied in a draft Report by the Chairman of that Body. It was proposed to put the scheme in force as soon as matters were arranged. Until they were in a position to submit the scheme to the House, he did not think it would be well to place the Correspondence, which was necessarily imperfect, on the Table.

  REPORTS OF THE REGISTRARS GENERAL FOR IRELAND AND SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the President of the Local Government Board, When he may expect the
  1718
  Irish and Scotch Registrars' Reports of Births, &c.?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he had already informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had no authority whatever over this registration. He had mentioned the matter to the Lord Advocate, who, he believed, had telegraphed to Scotland to make inquiries on the subject.

  FOREIGN AND COLONIAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—NOTICE OF MOTION OF SIR WILFRID LAWSON.

    OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish to put a Question to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle relating to the Business on the Paper to-day, and the answer to which, I think, may possibly expedite the Business before the House. Perhaps the House will allow me to say one or two words in explanation. I have had some communication with my hon. Friend relating to the Motion of which he has given Notice on going into Committee of Ways and Means, and I informed my hon. Friend that I do not concur with him in the expediency of bringing forward the Resolution of which he has given Notice at the present time. I also informed him that, to the best of my judgment, it was not one, if moved under present circumstances, that was likely to meet with a large amount of support on this side of the House. I believe, however, that my hon. Friend does not concur with me in the view that I take of the matter, and is of opinion that the issue which he desires to raise is one which is distinct from any hitherto decided by the House, and that it will be his duty, at a fitting opportunity, to bring forward this Motion and to bring it to the test of a Division. I am sure my hon. Friend, in the course he proposes to take, does not desire to cause any inconvenience, or any further delay to the Business of the House than can possibly be avoided; and as I understand, that a discussion of some importance upon purely financial questions is likely to take place whenever we go into Committee of Ways and Means, and as it would be inconvenient that the time for our going into Committee should be uncertain, I wish to ask my hon. Friend whether, in the event of his still thinking it would be necessary to bring for-

    1719
    ward the Resolution, he would think it expedient to postpone the Motion from the Question that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair, until some further stage in the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill? If my hon. Friend is willing to take that course, I think it would tend to the convenience of the House and to the progress of Public Business.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I can assure the House and the noble Lord that I am most anxious to meet what appears to be the convenience of the House. I have heard what the noble Lord has said, and I am greatly indebted to him. I may, perhaps, be permitted to state that I should not have ventured to bring this Motion if I had not considered—as I think I shall be able to prove when I proceed with it—that it was a totally different Motion from that which we debated last week. But, be that as it may, I am aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer kindly stated at the conclusion of the last debate that we should have four or five opportunities of raising a discussion on the Budget, and, that being the case, I think I should, perhaps, meet the convenience of the House by agreeing to what the noble Lord has suggested, and postponing my Motion until some future stage of the Budget Bill. Of course, in doing so, I act entirely on my own responsibility, and I do not hold the noble Lord pledged to give me anymore support on a future occasion than he would have done now. I act entirely on my own responsibility, and I hope that when the time comes I shall be able to make out a good case.

  THE GREEK FRONTIER—CONFERENCE OF AMBASSADORS AT CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
  MR. MONK: May I ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which I have not been able to give him private Notice? It is, Whether there is any truth in the statement which appears this morning of the failure of the negotiations carried on between the Powers with a view to a Conference of Ambassadors at Constantinople, to settle the Greek Frontier question; and, if so, whether the failure is consequent on the refusal of the English Government to entertain that proposal?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, I have no knowledge of the statement; but perhaps the
  1720
  hon. Member will give me Notice of the Question for another occasion.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF THOMAS MORAN.—QUESTION.
  DR. KENEALYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has more fully investigated the case of Thomas Moran, and whether his alleged refusal to act had been caused by the one-sided statements of the magistrates?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I feel bound to say that I never judge any case by one-sided statements. The inquiries which I have been trying to make have been principally through those persons who are most active in seeking to obtain his release. I have the statement on the case before me; and, on behalf of the magistrates, I think it right to state that the evidence which was given before them has been confirmed and corroborated by all the statements which have been laid before me since. Those gentlemen who were most active in seeking to obtain his immediate release had come to the conclusion that the sums he was said to have received were actually received by him, and that he might have been in full work during the whole of the time. There is also no doubt that he applied for and obtained relief from the Charity Organization Society at a time when he was in full work; and I certainly do not think that the sympathy which has been spent on this man is really deserved. If a person obtains work and good wages, and is in good health, it is not creditable for him to leave his children in the workhouse without paying for them. He was, however, out of work at Christmas, and I am in communication with the magistrates as to the sentence which they passed upon him. They undoubtedly passed the heaviest sentence which the law allows, and I have already said that I think it was too severe.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.

    QUESTIONS.
    In reply to Mr. PULESTON,
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was afraid there was no chance of bringing on the Navy Estimates again until after Whitsuntide.
    In reply to Mr. A MILLS,
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that, in consequence of the absence of his right hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary of State for War, from indisposition, they would not be able to take the Army Discipline Bill that night. After the Committee of Ways and Means, they would proceed with the Criminal Code Bill, or the Public Works Loans Bill.

  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL.

    OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
    MR. NEWDEGATEwished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department with respect to an Order which stood late on the Notice Paper, the Prosecution of Offences Bill; and a clause, which he (Mr. Newdegate) had given Notice that he would move as an addition to that Bill, stood upon the Notice Paper when the Bill stood for Committee on Thursday last. Not expecting that the Bill would come on that night, he was not on Thursday last present to move this clause, the object of which was to assimilate the law of England to that of Scotland, with respect to the Public Prosecutor and his relations to the Courts of Justice. From the best information which he could gather—for there was scarcely any report in the newspapers—it appeared that, in his absence, and without having obtained his consent, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary moved the clause of which he (Mr. Newdegate) had given Notice. According to the practice of the House, if one hon. Member gave Notice of a Bill, or a particular clause, no other hon. Member was entitled, without the consent of the Member who had given Notice, and unless he approved of the principle of the clause, to move the second reading of such clause or Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman had moved the second reading of the clause which stood in his (Mr. Newdegate's) name, although he did not, as it appeared, approve of the principle of the clause; and, having thus stepped into his (Mr. Newdegate's) shoes, the right hon. Gentleman had performed the evolution which an Irish gentleman had ascribed to another, as "having turned his back upon himself." For, after moving that the clause, which asserted
    1722
    the principle of the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Public Prosecutor, should be read a second time, no sooner was it taken in Committee than the right hon. Gentleman proposed the reversal of its principle. This proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman placed him (Mr. Newdegate) in a somewhat extraordinary position. He had no resource but to place on the Notice Paper an Amendment, as he had done, for the purpose of restoring the clause to the form and terms in which it originally stood in his name; but as the operation, which the right hon. Gentleman performed on Thursday, took place late at night, he (Mr. Newdegate) was anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to proceed with the Report of this Bill that evening, and after what hour he would not proceed with it? He asked this Question, because hitherto the Bill had never been considered before between midnight and 1 o'clock in the morning, and it was a measure that contained most important principles. He hoped, then, the House would excuse his having called its attention to this irregularity; and he would observe that if such departures from the regular practice of the House received the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman, who ought to be a high authority in the House, it would become difficult for hon. Members to form any judgment on the mode of conducting the Business of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had on Monday last asked him to postpone his clause until the Report on the Bill; but he (Mr. Newdegate) declined to do so, because other hon. Members wished the Committee to be postponed, and it was postponed accordingly. He was sure the House would feel the wisdom of adhering to the established practice of the House, according to which no hon. Member was entitled to move a Notice, especially a Bill or a clause to be added to a Bill, the principle of which he was not prepared to support. When any hon. Member gave Notice of a Bill or an important clause, he exercised an important privilege in so doing, and this privilege was founded upon the expectation that the Member who moved coincided in the principle of the Bill or clause he proposed. If, then, an hon. Member who might know nothing of the subject-matter, or who desired to

    1723
    reverse the principle contained in a Bill or a clause, was to be held at liberty to move the second reading of any Bill or clause, and then afterwards to reverse the principle of it in Committee, he (Mr. Newdegate) could not imagine how order in the proceedings of that House could be maintained. He thanked the House for allowing him to make these remarks with regard to what had taken place with respect to this clause during his absence and without his consent; and he now begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, Whether he intended to proceed with the Report of the Prosecution of Offences Bill that night, and after what hour he would not proceed with it?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that he had often heard that it was not a wise thing to do a kindness, and after what he had just heard nothing would tempt him to do the same thing again. When the clause came on, about a quarter-past 12, he did not like to see it passed over without any notice being taken of it in the absence of his hon. Friend, and what had subsequently occurred had been done by order of the Chairman. He took the course which he did in order to give his hon. Friend an opportunity of raising a discussion of the principle of the clause which he had put on the Paper. He had made certain alterations in the clause, in order to meet the views of the Attorney General; and he believed that, after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown, he would be able to settle the matter to the satisfaction of his hon. Friend. There would be ample opportunity, he might add, for moving an Amendment on the Report.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINexpressed a hope that the Public Works Loans Bill Would not be taken that evening. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that when brought on it should stand as the first Order.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not recollect having made any such promise—in fact, his impression was that he had distinctly declined to put down the Public Works Loans Bill as the First Order. He now found that his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General was prepared to proceed with the Criminal Code Bill; and, therefore, that would be taken that evening if it could be reached in good time.

  MEDICAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL— THE MEDICAL COUNCIL.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Vice President of the Council, When he intends to move for a Committee to inquire into the constitution of the Medical Council?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, the second reading of the Medical Act Amendment Bill, and the Motion for a Select Committee on the same subject, were both blocked by Amendments standing in the names of hon. Gentlemen opposite; and unless the right hon. Gentleman could prevail on his hon. Friends to withdraw their Notices, there was no immediate prospect of his being able to proceed with the Bill or the Motion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GLASGOW MUNICIPAL EXTENSION, &C. BILL.

    SPECIAL REPORT.
    Special Report read, and considered.
    ADMIRAL EGERTON: I now beg to move the following Resolution:—
    "That, having heard the Special Report of the Committee, the House is of opinion that a breach of privilege has been committed, and that the parties by whom the Petition in question was prepared are liable to be dealt with by the House in respect thereof, but that under the circumstances it is not necessary to proceed further in the matter."
    I will not occupy the time of the House very long while I propose the Motion of which I have given Notice. Although the conclusion contained in the Resolution may seem a somewhat lame conclusion at which to arrive after the reading of the Report which has been presented to the House, I think it is a proper one. The facts of the case are very simple. The Committee over which I had the honour to preside had, amongst other matters, to deal with the Petitions which had been presented to them. In the course of the case it appeared that certain Petitions had been presented in opposition to the Bill, and had received a number of what were called forged signatures. It was stated that a considerable number of signatures—amounting to over 100—were not in the handwriting of the persons bearing the names,

    1725
    and it was also stated that a great many of the signatures appeared without the consent of the persons supposed to have signed the Petition. Now, I confess, as Chairman of that Committee, that I was not aware that it was the duty of the Committee to investigate the circumstances attending any Petition presented to it. Certain allegations were made respecting the Petitions presented to us, and as there was no machinery existing in the Court of Referees to inquire into them, it plainly became the duty of the Committee to institute such inquiry. We consequently examined a number of witnesses on both sides; and in the course of their examination it became perfectly clear that the facts were as alleged; that a considerable number of signatures attached to the Petition were not those of the individuals they were professed to be; and, moreover, it was also seen equally clearly that a great number of the signatures were in one person's handwriting. We called before us, amongst others, one witness who admitted that he had written a number of the signatures, and who likewise admitted that he believed that he had obtained the authority of either the person whose name he had affixed, or, in other cases, the authority of either the wife or some representative to do so. Well, there was no doubt that this proceeding was a violation of Rule 316 of the Rules and Orders which govern Public Petitions, and also a violation of Standing Order 129, which says that no Petition shall be allowed which, is not in strict conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House. Besides such a violation, it was plain that, according to the technical Rules of the House, a breach of Privilege had been committed. But, after the most minute inquiry that to the Members of the Committee that we could make, it appeared to me and there had been no intention to commit a fraud; that the witness by whom these names were signed had nothing to gain by it; that he was not paid by the number of signatures he obtained, but paid by the day; and that his instructions were to obtain as many signatures as he could. I think the whole thing arose very much more from ignorance of the Rules of the House than otherwise; indeed, it appeared from the evidence that the Memorial from the inhabitants of Glasgow was got up in pretty much the
    1726
    same way, but corrected before it reached the Committee. There had been a want of discrimination on both sides. It became quite clear, so far as the promoters and agents in the case were concerned, although some blame may be attributed to them for the haste with which they got up the Petition, that there was no evidence of any intention on their part to deceive the Committee; in fact, the evidence was entirely the other way. Under those circumstances, the Committee considered what we ought to report to the House, and the Report which I brought up on Friday was the result of our deliberations. We thought. Sir, on the whole, that although the offence apparently in the first instance was a somewhat serious one, yet it was committed in ignorance of the Rules of the House, and that it was possible that any punishment we inflicted might, perhaps, be greater than the fault deserved. Taking all things into consideration, it appeared to us that, by the Resolution which I have the honour to move to-day, the power of the House might be sufficiently demonstrated and its dignity sufficiently vindicated. I therefore beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
    SIR EDMUND LECHMERE: As a Member of the Committee on this Bill, I beg to second the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, having hoard the Special Report of the Committee, the House is of opinion that a breach of privilege has been committed, and that the parties by whom the Petition in question was prepared are liable to be dealt with by the House in respect thereof, but that under the circumstances it is not necessary to proceed further in the matter."—(Admiral Egerton.)
    MR. ANDERSON: Before the Resolution is put to the House, I should like to say one word. I have no wish to ask the House to deal more severely with these parties than the gallant Admiral proposes; yet, at the same time, I think it would be an unpardonable thing to allow it to go abroad that this mode of dealing with the House—this mode of falsifying Petitions—is really a trivial matter. The signing of an ordinary Petition to the House is often done in a very perfunctory way; and while I am not prepared to say that the signing of a Petition to a Private Bill Committee should be placed on any dif-

    1727
    ferent footing to a Petition to the House, I think the House will see on consideration that it has a very different bearing in reality. A Petition to a Private Bill Committee is a Petition to gain a locus standi before the Committee to oppose a Bill; it is a Petition to gain a certain special and immediate advantage. A Petition is presented to this House to ask for certain enactments or amendments of laws, and so forth, and it is ordered to lie on the Table, and does not materially influence any large section of hon. Members; but a Private Bill Committee, consisting of four or five individuals, and having a Petition laid before it for special consideration, is very apt to be influenced by every Petition which comes before it in that way. Therefore, the effect of a Petition presented to a Committee is greater than that of an ordinary Petition presented to the House. Now, Sir, the facts connected with the getting up of this Petition were very questionable indeed. The counties around Glasgow had always very persistently opposed any attempt to bring within the boundary of the City certain outlying districts; and, in this instance, the clerk to the Commissioners of Supply of the County of Renfrew set about getting up all the opposition he could. He was not able to get the signatures to the Petition himself, so he employed a Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell, also, was unable to get the signatures, so he employed a Mr. Henrietta, who employed a fourth, a Mr. Henderson, and this Mr. Henderson went about the district collecting signatures, and where he could not get signatures he simply wrote down the names himself. Now, the statement that he got the authority of the wife or some other representative of the alleged signators proves to be very shadowy indeed. The man, in his great desire to show his zeal to his employer, where he could not get the names, simply wrote them himself, and 75 names were thus written to a Petition which was to influence a Private Bill Committee. Fortunately, the thing was found out, the Committee was not influenced, and no harm has been done. I understand that the Committee entirely rejected that Petition, and that there is no intention that it should be rehabilitated before the Committee. That being so, I shall abstain from moving any counter Resolution. Had there been
    1728
    any attempt to rehabilitate the Petition, I should have felt bound to oppose it.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE: After the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), I think it would be very much to be regretted if the House were to measure out the blame to these persons without our having the evidence before them on which the Report was made.
    MR. MONK: I feel a difficulty in supporting the Motion of the gallant Admiral, because it states "After having heard the special Report of the Committee, the House is of opinion." For my part, I have not heard the special Report of the Committee, and I doubt whether any hon. Member has heard that Report. I am not aware that the Report has been read by the Clerk at the Table. I think it ought to have been printed and circulated. [An hon. MEMBER: It has been.] That being the case, I, unfortunately, have not seen the Report. But I must agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) that in cases of this kind, where a witness has admitted that he has forged a certain number of signatures, the House ought not merely, as it were, to pass to the Order of the Day and take no further notice of such a proceeding as that laid before the House. I think it would be desirable, at all events, that the House should, through the Chairman of the Committee, in a marked manner, reprimand the witness for having committed such a forgery. It should be shown that the House takes notice of Petitions, whether they are presented to Select Committees or presented to the House itself.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Although, doubtless, this is a matter which touches all Committees of the House, and although the House would certainly do wrong in showing any indifference as to the manner in which Petitions are presented to the House or to its Committees, still, having heard the Report which has been presented by the Committee, and seeing the recommendation which the Chairman of the Committee has thought fit to make, after viewing all the circumstances, I think the House may be satisfied that, by passing the Resolution the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes, it will be doing all that is required. There is no question whatever as to the breach of

    1729
    privilege that has been made, and as to the liability of the parties to any proceeding which the House may think fit to take; but, under the circumstances, as I gather them from the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the House may, I think, extend its mercy, so to speak, to those who have been guilty of this offence. I think it would be unnecessary that we should proceed further, and that we may be satisfied with the Resolution.
    Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I desire. Sir, to revert to the proposition in which the defence of the present financial plan of the Government was left when the House lately voted a substantiation of that plan. It is not my intention to again travel over any portion of the ground taken up in the discussion when the House was last in Committee on this question; but, in the defence which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer then made, there was embodied, not as a casual but as a principal element, a reference to the policy pursued in the year 1860. It was referred to partly for the purpose of precedent and partly for the purpose of apology. The doctrine was laid down in 1860, and was quoted during the present year, that in a case where a considerable war expenditure arises, it is not unfair to make the provision for that expenditure partly from taxes and partly by means of loan or other temporary resources, not included within the regular Revenue of the year. It is quite true that I am responsible for having laid down that doctrine, and it appears to me to be a very reasonable one. It was acted upon in July, 1860, when we had a large demand, exceeding £3,000,000, at the close of the Session—a demand which came upon us for funds to carry on the war in China. A portion of it was proposed to be provided for by taxes, and the other and the smaller portion was proposed to be provided for out of balances—a measure
  1730
  which would have been exactly the same in principle as if the case had been one of Exchequer Bonds or Bills. That doctrine, however, is quoted in support of a plan of finance in which there is no distinction whatever in taxation—that is to say, between new taxation and borrowing. Of the whole of the sum that is wanted for the purposes of the year, not one farthing—except £2,000 upon cigars, which I do not think will be quoted—is proposed to be taken by new taxes. The doctrine of 1860 was applied at a time when we proposed to lay on new taxes to a considerable amount upon spirits imported from abroad and manufactured at home, and consequently there is no analogy whatever between the case of that year, when there was a real division in the mode of supply between taxes and other resources, and the present case, when no recourse is had to taxation whatever. I come to a point on which a statement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on which it may be necessary for me to trouble the House at some length—a statement which, I will venture to say, even if it had been well founded in fact, would not have served to justify the finance which is now before us. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman, in brief, was this—That in 1860 the Government of that day imposed, and the House agreed to impose, certain taxes, and the House likewise agreed to repeal certain taxes, and that the taxes repealed exceeded the taxes imposed by £2,600,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer added, that while we were repealing taxes to that extent over and above the taxes imposed in that same year, having a certain amount to charge for the erection of fortifications, we did not meet it from the Votes, but by resorting to borrowing and to the creation of annuities. That is an extreme case of argumentum ad hominem, if it can be sustained as a matter of fact; but can it be so sustained? The state of the case is really this—the charge, as it ultimately came out, for fortifications in 1860–1, was very small, about £150,000, but the original Estimate laid before the Government was much above that sum. According to that statement, the Estimate for the first year was to have been £2,000,000; and the question which I had to consider, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was whe-

  1731
  ther I had to place those £2,000,000 upon the Votes? My justification for not doing so was not at all that we were making a permanent addition to the defences of the country; but that I had already pressed Parliament and the people up to the extreme of what they could be induced or reasonably be expected to bear in the matter of taxation. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my own are in violent contradiction; and if the former is correct I will willingly submit my back to the smiter. But let us see how the case stands. I have a little book before me, accessible to all hon. Members, from which I find that in 1860 the amount of taxes repealed was £3,080,000, and that the amount of taxes imposed was £3,030,000. Therefore, the first fact which a reference to that little book shows is to reduce—to get rid of—the £2,600,000 of supposed balance or remission which the Chancellor of the Exchequer advances as the main apology for the finance which he has given us this year. That is the first step in my examination of the case; but only the first step, and a small part of the ground over which I wish to travel. These are statements setting forth the financial proceedings of each year; but it is impossible to give, in the few figures there given, any decidedly accurate account of any complicated financial statement which may result from the affairs of this country. It so happens that in the year 1860 these proceedings were exceedingly complicated. There was a mass of taxation repealed under Treaty, and a mass of taxation repealed not under Treaty, and there was a vast amount of taxation imposed, very varying in its character. Again, after the first Budget of the 10th of February there was a second one growing out of the Chinese War, which still further complicates matters. But the first correction I make is a correction perfectly obvious. The taxes repealed as they are put down in this statement are put down according to the amount of relief given to the consumer. But the merits of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the repeal of taxation are not to be judged by the relief to the consumer. The test as regards it is the amount of loss to the Exchequer. Anyone who will refer to my Financial Statement will find that the amount of relief given to consumers was, no doubt, substantially
  1732
  as it is put down in this present book; but he will also find that I there and then stated that, as the whole of these taxes were differential duties, there would be a large recovery on these taxes, which I then estimated at £671,000, which was to come back into the Treasury. I must, therefore, deduct that from the supposed loss of the year, and bringing it down to £2,415,000, and deducting that from the amount of the taxation imposed, according to this book, there is a balance of taxes imposed over taxes relieved of £616,000. That is the next peg I have to drive into the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not nearly done with him. Let me say, however, in the first instance, that, as a general rule in any discussion between that side and this on matters of figures, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary to the Treasury ought to be held a great deal more tightly to their figures than Gentlemen on this side of the House, because their means of examination and verification are far superior to any of those that we enjoy. At the same time, I do not charge upon my right hon. Friend anything but innocent and involuntary error. I consider my right hon. Friend as accurate in the use of figures as anybody I know; and as I mean to impeach his statement right and left, wholesale and retail, I am bound to make that statement. My right hon. Friend has forgotten that March 31, 1860, was a very great epoch in our finance. He has forgotten two things of the most vital consequence; and when I speak of his errors in this respect, the errors which I have already pointed out are small compared with those which I am going to point out. The first of these errors is this. During the Crimean War extra taxation was laid on tea and sugar, and its term was fixed for March 31, 1860. This £2,100,000 which we realized as extra taxation on tea and sugar was to lapse with the Budget of 1860. But we induced Parliament to renew that taxation, and that was, in the strictest sense, the imposition of fresh taxation. Therefore, that £2,100,000 ought to be added to the £616,000 as the balance according to this Blue Blook of taxes imposed over taxes repealed. That is not all. I do not think my right hon. Friend can be aware of the state in which the law was

  1733
  with regard to the Income Tax in 1860. He is evidently under the impression that we then had a 9d. tax. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHQUER: No, no.] If that is not so, I am very sorry; for only in that way have I been able to account for the extraordinary statement which he has laid before the House. There was no 9d. tax in that year at all. I must refer to what had occurred in 1859 in order to make the matter clear. There was then a deficit winch was not altogether unexpected; for I have observed that it is becoming almost a normal practice for a Conservative Government when it goes out of Office to hand over a very large deficit to a Liberal Government. That is, perhaps, a controversial remark; but it is the only one I shall make. In June, 1859, then, the Conservative or Tory Government went out of Office; but it presented its Estimates in February, 1859, and from the 1st of April the whole Expenditure was going on upon a scale enormously increased. The 18th of July was the earliest date when the Government of Lord Palmerston was able to bring the finance of the country under the consideration of the House; and, therefore, nearly four months of the financial year had gone, and nearly four months of this augmented Expenditure had been passed over. The Expenditure was certainly approved and required by the country; but our unfortunate predicament was that when four months were gone we acceded to Office, and had to meet a deficiency of £5,000,000, with one-third of the year gone. Well, Sir, we met that deficiency, and we met it without borrowing, while we maintained that we must make adequate and effective provision for the wants of the year. I also maintained that it was a period when the attention of the Committee should be rigidly confined to the wants of the year. That was an express and explicit pledge that we asked for money to defray the charge of the country for the year, but did not pledge them to anything beyond it. I asked Parliament to give me 4d. in the pound upon the Income Tax, not by raising the 5d. tax to 9d., but to give me a payment of 4d. in one lump, not upon the year but upon the first half of the year, and Parliament agreed to that proposal. By that means we raised the whole amount required, and only in that way could it be done.
  1734
  The House ought to be aware that the Income Tax was not receivable then as it is now within the year, but only one-half was received within the year, and the other half was received after it was expired. The consequence was, that in 1859–60 we had an Income Tax of 5d. in the pound expiring in March, 1860; and in respect of the first half of the year we had a tax of 4d. on that half in a lump sum, which, if extended to the whole year, would have been equal to a tax of 8d. in the pound, while in the last half the rate was 5d. in the pound; but that was not all that was done. Besides the tax voted in this way, besides the war duties on tea and sugar of £2,100,000, we asked Parliament to raise the 5d. Income Tax to 10 d. Moreover, besides raising the Income Tax to 10 d., we had likewise provided that instead of raising half the tax in the year that we should raise three-quarters in the year. So that the effect was exactly the same as if, with the old method of collection, we had asked Parliament to put 7½d. additional upon the Income Tax. That is what my right hon. Friend quotes against me as a year when I was giving away taxes at the rate of £2,600,000. I will now give the House my figures, and I think they will rather surprise my right hon. Friend. I am bound to say that I cannot stick to them for £10,000 or £20,000, as after this lapse of time it is impossible to make sure of small sums, and so obtain a result of precise accuracy; but to the substance of these figures I will stand, and as we shall have various other opportunities of referring to this matter, this will probably not be my last reference to the matter. The state of the case to which I refer was a very remarkable one. There had been an immense increase in the armaments of Europe, and a great stir here. I found, on entering Office, that the Accounts as first presented to me showed on balance a deficit of £9,400,000. That was assuming the Income Tax to lapse, and assuming the tea and sugar duties to continue at their peace rate. That was, perhaps, an excessive assumption. But assuming the Income Tax to continue, and to bring in £2,840,000, continuing it at 5d., that deficit was £6,560,000. Yet, in face of that deficit I managed, according to my right hon. Friend, to give £2,600,600 in taxes away. If I did that, I was a great

  1735
  deal cleverer fellow than I take myself to be. Now, let us see how this comes about. We have £2,430,000 falling in from the lapse of Long Annuities, and to meet this £9,400,000, or I may call it, in round figures, £10,000,000, we had nearly £3,000,000 of resources. We took up the malt and hop credits, which found us £1,400,000, and we also took up the balances, I think about £1,300,000, or a total of about £2,700,000 or upwards. And now, what does the House think was the amount of taxes which we imposed, and I think I can challenge anyone as to the correctness of the statement? It was £8,775,000. We induced Parliament to raise the Income Tax to 10 d. in the pound, and that produced us £2,824,000. We likewise brought in a third quarter of the Income Tax, so as to have three quarters instead of two quarters, and that gave us £2,821,000. We also induced Parliament to re-enact the war tea and sugar duties, giving us £2,301,000, and we imposed a number of other duties, the particulars of which may be seen set out in The Statistical Abstract, and which amounted to £2,030,000, without including the Income Tax. Taking those four items altogether, the total is £8,775,000, while the loss by remission was £2,415,000, leaving a balance of taxes imposed of £6,360,000, against the sum of about £2,700,000, which we got from resources other than taxation; and, consequently, we raised by taxation somewhere about two-thirds or three-quarters of the whole sum required for the services of the war—aye, and that by extra taxation, over and after reckoning every farthing of the taxes which we had remitted. Well, Sir, it appears to me to be not too much to say that these are statements which anyone can verify who will take the trouble to examine the rather complicated Returns of the Revenue; and I say that they are, in round numbers, strictly and accurately correct. We did lay down the doctrine that when there was a very heavy expenditure, something in the nature of a war expenditure suddenly arising, you might fall back on temporary resources, and we fell back on resources other than taxation to the extent of about one quarter, or somewhat more than a quarter of the whole charge. About three-quarters, or nearly so, was raised by taxation. That was a case in which, if we had asked Parlia-
  1736
  ment to take £2,000,000 more for the work of improving the coast and the fortifications, Parliament would have refused. We had made such enormous demands, that I do not think it would have been reasonable to have demanded more. Then, if we had done so, we should have had to go a great deal further, and it was a time to act, not on rigid, mathematical rules, but by a fair method of balancing the circumstances of the case. I affirm that the year 1860, instead of being a year of relaxed finance, was a year of rigid finance; and when I look back on it now, what really astonishes me is the facility with which Parliament was induced to make so heavy an addition as £6,363,000 to the burdens of the people. We did remit some amount of taxation. If we had not done so, we should not have maintained the Public Services; but they were induced to do what they did by the anticipations of the immense advantages which were anticipated from the French Treaty, and which, I am glad to say, were realized. If I put aside the question of direct taxation, and look at that of indirect taxation alone, there is not much difference. What we did with indirect taxation was this. We raised £2,000,000 or £2,500,000 by indirect taxation, making £4,130,000 of taxation imposed. We remitted at least £3,000,000 of indirect taxation, but lost by our remittance £2,180,000 in indirect taxation, so that we gained by our operation £2,028,000 on indirect taxation, considered apart from direct taxation. With regard to the year 1860, that year was a very unfortunate year, in which the Revenue failed to a large extent. That, of course, could not be foreseen, nor could the large surpluses which afterwards flowed in. It only shows that the Revenue of the country is a subject of far more comprehensive interest than could be included in a mere argumentative speech such as that in which I have dealt with it. The Revenue of the country has within the last few years assumed a solidity which must have astonished those who had to contemplate it in its former state. About 15 or 20 years ago the mere event of a bad harvest was sufficient to make a bad Revenue, and to throw the Chancellor of the Exchequer into difficulties. Now it has grown to such an extent that it requires great prolongation of distress as well as

  1737
  a bad harvest, even seriously, or at all heavily, to affect the Revenue of the country. But that is not the question. The question is not whether the Estimate of 1860 was verified or not. The question is, what is the finance which was submitted to Parliament, and sanctioned by Parliament? and my affirmation is that instead of remitting, as my right hon. Friend supposes, a very large amount of taxation over and above what we imposed, we imposed a very large amount over and above what we remitted; and in proof of this I refer to the statement which I hold in my hand, which shows, imperfect though it be, that the amount of taxes—where the money lost by remission is clearly seen—the amount over and above that, I say, is about £6,000,000.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry that some remarks he made the other night had caused his right hon. Friend to take the trouble of preparing the speech to which the House had just listened; but, at the same time, he could not regret, on the whole, that they had heard from his right hon. Friend a speech on the financial policy of the year 1860, with which he was most familiar. He wished, at the outset, to have it clearly understood that in what he said a few days back he did not intend to impute any blame to his right hon. Friend for the financial policy of the year to which he was referring for the purposes of argument. All that he endeavoured to show was, that the finance which he recommended to the House, and which was severely criticized by the right hon. Gentleman, might find, at all events, some palliation, if not justification, by reference to the finance of the years to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) alluded. The point of his argument was, that the finance of that period was so arranged that large remissions of taxation took place, and, at the same time, money was borrowed and charges were made upon posterity which he thought might have Been avoided, and would have been avoided, if the same strict rules had been enforced that were attempted to be imposed upon him. He could not help pointing out that he was at the present time paying the expense of charges which were then incurred, and which had been thrown upon the future in the form of Terminable Annuities. He,
  1738
  however, confessed that he sincerely regretted having been in error in regard to one important point to which his right hon. Friend had referred. A statement had been drawn up for him by a gentleman conversant with these matters—a gentleman in whom he believed the right hon. Gentleman himself trusted—[Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] but the mistake he fell into was his own. The document was drawn up in order to show how much charge the right hon. Gentleman was throwing upon his successors in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the same time that he was remitting taxation for those for whom he was himself at that time administering the finances. He had statements given him year by year showing what the amounts were for fortifications, and what, at the same time, was the amount taken off taxation; and he found that in the first years of the Returns given to him the Government borrowed for fortifications £970,000, and they took off taxation in excess of those imposed to the amount of £2,609,000, and having in his own mind that it was in I860 the fortification loan was instituted, he had applied those figures to the year 1860 instead of to the yearfoliowing—namely, 1861–2; that was an error into which he fell. It appeared that in 1860 a very small loan was raised on behalf of fortifications. As a matter of fact, sums were borrowed year by year for fortifications, and he believed that there were remissions of taxation. [Mr. CHILDERS dissented.] Well, he should have the figures verified; he was explaining the error into which he fell, and which he had just discovered. Although that might be taken to be very material as to the particular statement he had made, it did not affect, as it seemed to him, the general argument which he was founding on the finance of that year and the dealings of the then Government in the matter of these particular loans. With regard to that year, he did not think it at all necessary to go into that marvellous calculation which his right hon. Friend entranced the House with at the time, when he horrified them by piling deficit upon deficit until he had raised it to the enormous sum of £9,400,000, which he then proceeded to deal with. That was considered at the time a great work of art, and they had seen to-day how it still appeared. What did occur

  1739
  at that time was that his right hon. Friend having to deal with a state of finance which threw a considerable burden upon the Exchequer, nevertheless did come forward, and did propose to make large remissions of taxation in connection with the French Treaty, and far beyond those demands. Those were very considerable reductions, made for the benefit of the country; but, at the same time, to enable him to make those reductions, the right hon. Gentleman would hardly deny he thought himself justified in having recourse to transactions in the nature of borrowing. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] It was all very well to say "No;" but he must insist upon the fact that it was not only in July of that year, but in February of that year, in the arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman made, that he did introduce other arrangements besides those of merely meeting the deficit by taxation. The right hon. Gentleman said—"Very well; but this was a matter of Exchequer Bonds." Exchequer Bonds were treated with great contempt now; but that was what he was seriously accused of now. He proposed to defer to another year certain Exchequer Bonds which fell due to be paid this year. The right hon. Gentleman did exactly the same thing in 1860; and it seemed that what was a very wrong thing in 1879 was to be treated as right when done by the right hon. Gentleman in 1860. He was not comparing the circumstances in one year with the circumstances in the other. They differed almost in every respect. That was a point made by the right hon. Gentleman just now—that in these cases you must not go by rigid rules, but exercise a discretion; and as the right hon. Gentleman claimed, and fairly claimed, and was allowed by the general assent of a large portion of the House and the country, to exercise his discretion, he thought that the Government ought not to be tied and bound by rigid rules from exercising discretion now. The circumstances in which they were placed were these:—They had incurred a considerable expenditure—not an enormous expenditure—within the past two or three years for warlike purposes. The Government thought that they were justified in spreading that over a period of a few years—three years were first spoken of; but in consequence of the increased amount four years were pro-
  1740
  posed. He was ready to maintain and justify the assertion that this was a better arrangement for the country, that it was more for the convenience and advantage of the country that expenditure of this kind should be so met, than that it should be met by putting on additional taxation for this year, and taking it off again next year. He was entirely opposed to the idea, which had been advanced from the other side of the House, that the Government should apply the Income Tax in the same way as rates were used in municipal bodies—that the Expenditure of any one year being ascertained, they ought to make the Income Tax higher or lower, according to that Expenditure. That was a corollary he could not approve drawing; but it was a corollary which might reasonably be drawn from the doctrines laid down. He must protest against the principle. The right hon. Gentleman and others had done him the honour to refer to the doctrines which he had formerly stated in financial policy, and he was accused of falling away from, his opinions in order to meet the convenience of the present moment. He utterly denied it; and he said if anyone did him the honour to refer to the book which related to the war expenditure to be met in 1854, it would be seen that the views which he there laid down were very much in harmony with the course he proposed to take now. The House should bear in mind the great difference that existed between our financial situation at that time and that which existed now. They had now a very small number of sources of taxation; and it was impossible to deal with them in a way in which formerly they were able to deal with their fiscal system, when they had an enormous number of articles subject to duty which they were able, at convenient opportunities, to relieve of duty, very much to the advantage of the Revenue. In 1860, when his right hon. Friend made his great Budget, there were about 500 articles subject to Customs duty, and he struck off 450 from the list, very much, no doubt, to the advantage of the country, as well as to the consumer. When he was asked, "Why don't you do the same thing?" he replied that they had only now some 20 or 30 articles on the list, and they could not repeat the operation, for the thing was done. How, then, were they

  1741
  to deal with the question of raising taxation in any particular year? He must remind hon. Gentlemen of the disadvantage there was to the country in adding merely for a year—or, may be, for two years—to the taxation of various articles from which they now derived a great part of the Revenue. Hon. Members must see that that operation ought not to be undertaken for a more temporary purpose, unless there was an absolute necessity. What did the Government do? Two years ago, as he reminded the House the other night, they brought their taxation up to what was considered to be a fair level to meet ordinary Expenditure. Last year, when they had a war expenditure, or a quasi- war expenditure, to deal with, he proposed to the House—and the House agreed to it—to add to the Income Tax and the tobacco duties, and thus make provision for the extra expenditure; and they were carrying that increased taxation on now. The right hon. Gentleman said he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not adding to the taxation of the year; but if he adopted the method of calculation adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in 1860, he might claim that he was putting on taxation by renewing those imposed last year. In fact, he was asking the House to maintain, for such time as might be necessary, the higher war duties on the Income Tax, in order to cover the expenditure for warlike purposes. That was exactly what was done in 1860; and he could, therefore, quote that as a precedent for the step he had taken. He need not trouble the House any further. He was prepared to maintain that the course the Government were now recommending was one for the advantage of the country; that it was the proper one; and that it was perfectly consistent with the strictest principles of financial morality.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he should not have presumed for a moment to intervene between the two great masters of finance in the House, or to enter into the details of the Budget of 1860; but there was an authority so pertinent to the subject they were discussing—namely, the general principle which ought to govern war expenditure—that he would ask the leave of the House to call attention to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred,
  1742
  not only to the precedent of 1860, but to the precedent of the Crimean War in 1854. Would the House allow him to call attention to a passage which described what was then the policy of the Liberal Party, and what was then the policy of the Conservative Opposition? It was a passage in which he so entirely concurred, that it seemed to be all he had to say. It was as follows:—
  "The next Party conflict in the House of Commons will be upon finance. Gladstone wants to pay for the war out of current Revenue so long as he does not require more than £10,000,000 above the ordinary Expenditure, and to increase the taxes for that purpose. The Opposition are for borrowing—that is, increasing the Debt, and do not wish to impose in the meantime any further burdens on themselves. The former course is manly, statesmanlike, and honest; the latter is convenient, cowardly, perhaps popular. Nous verrons."
  That was dated Windsor Castle, 18th of April, 1854, and the author of those sentiments was the late Prince Consort. That showed that the policy now proposed was not a new policy. It was the old policy of the Conservative Party—the policy of not meeting their liabilities. The manly policy was that which was pursued by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) in 1854, up to which time he believed the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a disciple of the right hon. Gentleman; and it was not until a later time that he became the official Representative of the opinions expressed in that passage about the Conservatives. That was the real issue before the country and between the two Parties. It was the fact that it was the policy of the Conservative Party to incur liabilities and not to meet them. He might be accused of using strong language; but it was language which was to be found in the work placed before the country for its instruction on many points: and he thought there was contained in that passage the soundest possible doctrine on the question of finance.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that he had not troubled the House with any observations on this question before, because he did not wish to mix up what he had to say with any matter relating to the general policy of the Government; but as he had had the honour of holding the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he felt bound to express his sincere convictions on the subject, not dealing in any way with any Party whatever.

  1743
  He would state the objections he took to the proceedings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. First of all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer began by a proceeding which he could not too much deprecate, and that was the division of the Budget into two parts—ordinary and extraordinary. The Chancellor of the Exchequer commenced by setting aside a certain portion of money to be applied for the ordinary part, and he left, he believed, some £1,900,000 to be dealt with in the extraordinary part. Mere words would do no harm; but the effect of the division was that, whilst the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself bound to discharge the obligations—he (Mr. Lowe) had no doubt to give them the best estimate he could of the expenses which were to be incurred for the ordinary part—he gave them no account whatever of the expenditure for the extraordinary part. The doctrine he (Mr. Lowe) had always maintained was, that though it was difficult, almost impossible, to estimate to any nicety the amount that might be incurred, it did not in any degree exempt the Chancellor of the Exchequer from making an attempt—going as nearly as he could—to provide for the Expenditure. He held that the only security they had for anything like economy in this matter was by putting the greatest possible load of responsibility on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He took the liberty of addressing the House on this subject a little time ago, and he would not repeat what he then said; but if they allowed a Chancellor of the Exchequer to play fast and loose with the finances, and allowed him to make divisions and subdivisions in the Estimates, and say—"For one I estimate, for the other I cannot," they would lose the only hold they had over the finances, and they would leave it to the Government of the day to rush into any expense they thought proper. He might say that, so far as his own affairs were concerned, he had never attempted anything of the kind. "When he was in office he always made an Estimate which, he believed, proved in every instance to be adequate, and he was asking his successor to do that which he had felt it his bounden duty to do. They would see that a sum of £2,000,000, in round numbers, had been set apart for extraordinary Expenditure, and out of that they were to pay for the Zulu and
  1744
  the Afghan Wars. It was assumed by the Government that if they cost more than that they could not help it; but there had been no Estimate, and he asked why the sum of £2,000,000 was set down more than any other sum? If right hon. Gentlemen were allowed to manage their finances in this way, the necessary result must be that every man must be blamable to his Party who did not make it a point to have an extraordinary Budget when he was going out of office. It was not merely that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might spend any amount of money he pleased, but he left to his successors the unpopularity of providing for the money; and thus, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke precisely as to the Estimate he was about to spend, they had no security whatever over their finances, and all this talk was mere beating the air. Another thing he had to complain of, and that was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to lend India £2,000,000 sterling; but he did not find such an item either in the ordinary or extraordinary account. The fact was, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not the £2,000,000 he was going to lend, and it was not a strange inference, therefore, that he was going to borrow the amount.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg pardon. I did state that we made provision for the interest, and this would naturally lead to the impression that we were going to borrow the amount.
  MR. LOWEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made provision for the interest, but they had to borrow the principal. He wanted to know where the principal came from? To provide for the interest was not a part of their Expenditure, and it ought to go to swell up their deficiency. Then, again, if the money was to be repaid by India, who was to pay the interest? Why, the Government at home. He would like to know whether India was solvent or insolvent; because if she were solvent why did she not pay the interest, and if she were insolvent why did not the Government place the case fairly before them? These were all very ingenious transactions; and what he deprecated, above all things, was ingenious finance, whose object was not to enable the country to discharge its debts, but to mislead the House and to prevent the country from

  1745
  understanding it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said there were three courses open to him: to raise the money by taxation, to borrow it—making it part of the permanent debt of the country—or to spread it. That seemed to him a curious way of making three courses, and he should have thought there were only two courses—to raise the money by taxes, or to borrow it. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have split it into three, in order to show that he had taken the via media. Having made this wonderful division, he rode off upon the glorious statement that he had taken a moderate course. He had no complaint to make of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman treated the whole subject. He had laid down a number of rules for guidance on this subject—that care must be taken that the country's finances did not fluctuate; that trade must not be disturbed by the imposition of new taxes; and that nothing was more objectionable than to be always putting taxes on and taking them off. Then the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, with a certain degree of scorn, of what he need not have been in the least touchy about, for he was above the feeling of putting taxes on one year in order to make a grand remission the next. He would notice, in passing, the sneers the right hon. Gentleman had directed at himself with regard to the calling up of the Income Tax, which he (Mr. Lowe) effected during his period of office. He could only say that if the right hon. Gentleman could have effected that operation he would have found it a very beneficial one, because he would have had no question then about the middle course. That operation cost the country nothing, and it was a permanent relief of £3,000,000, which the country had been enjoying ever since. What the right hon. Gentleman said was true in one sense. It was right and proper to avoid fluctuations in our Revenue; but the fault he found with the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that he applied his doctrines, which were perfectly true in themselves, in the wrong places. If the Government did not want a fluctuating Revenue, and did not want to be borrowing money, they must follow a steady policy. When they had got the Expenditure larger than the Income, this doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1746
  was utterly inapplicable. The Government could not, he contended, be too careful as to entering upon any transactions which must necessarily inflict a heavy burden on the people; but that was not the question at issue on the present occasion. Whether money had been expended wisely or unwisely, there should be steady fixed rules with regard to its payment, from which nothing should induce a Chancellor of the Exchequer to depart. The first rule the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to observe was that every year should bear its own expenses as long as it was possible to do so. It would have been perfectly possible for the country, with a slight increase of taxation, to have borne its Expenditure this year without going into debt; but it was extremely convenient and popular, no doubt, that certain payments should be postponed until proceedings in which every constituent, and every Representative of a constituent, were much interested had passed over. But that was not a patriotic course; it was not a wise course; but it was a course that might become, if allowed to pass without reprobation, an established course, so that every Government would feel it its duty, when it found its later days drawing on, to leave to its Successors a legacy which, at any rate, would prevent them from acquiring any laurels by a remission of taxation.
  MR. RITCHIEconsidered that the Government had done very wisely in declining to increase the burden of taxation, seeing the state of trade in the country. Looking at the large sum now paid towards the reduction of the National Debt, they should remember that the country was every year thereby becoming sounder in its financial condition. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers) had compared the amounts by which the late and the present Governments had respectively reduced the Debt, and had claimed for the late Government a much larger reduction than that effected by the present Government; but on looking at The Statistical Abstract it would be seen that the late Government effected a reduction of £26,200,000, of which £6,000,000 was extinguished by the balances of the Courts of Bankruptcy and Chancery, leaving a net reduction by the late Government of a little more than £20,000,000, as against £19,200,000 of reduction by

  1747
  the present Government—a balance in favour of the late Government of only £800,000. But, said the right hon. Gentleman, in addition to having paid off so much of the Debt, the late Government paid large sums for extraordinary charges. They paid £8,300,000 for war charges and, for the Alabama Claims; but the present Government had paid £8,375,000—almost an exactly similar sum for similar purposes—for war purposes and for preventing war. The late Government, it was true, paid £10,000,000 for the Telegraphs; but the present Government had also paid £1,000,000 for the same object, and they had provided, in excess of that provided by their Predecessors, £8,167,000 in aid of local taxation, while £6,000,000 more had been spent on education. He took the figures from a Return obtained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers). The net result was, that one Government proved, on examination, to have reduced the Debt by £800,000 more than the other; but, taking extraordinary charges into account, to have provided £1,167,000 less, on the whole. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the late Government had reduced taxation by the amount of £13,500,000; he believed that £12,500,000 was the more correct figure; but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) would probably admit that £4,500,000 was gained by taking five quarters in one year; so that, deducting that amount, the real reduction would be no more than £8,000,000. In short, the whole charge as to the Debt and extraordinary Expenditure came, on examination, to this—that while the late Government were able, in consequence of the prosperous state of the times, to reduce taxation by £8,000,000, the present Government had had to impose £1,000,000 additional taxation; but, taking the Debt and extraordinary charges together, they had provided £1,167,000 more than their Predecessors.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he most reluctantly went again over ground so well trodden in the former debate; but as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had thought it necessary again to refer to remarks he had made at Knottingley, in November last, he could only repeat that the figures he used
  1748
  were those of the printed Returns; that his comparison between the incidence of the tea duty and of local rates referred to additional boons demanded by the landed interest; and as to the Debt, that the late Government made a greater impression on it than the present by £3,500,000 a-year, according to the most favourable comparison for the latter. He had said that, in this comparison, he put aside altogether the charges of the Abyssinian War, the Ashantee War, and the Alabama Claims; but if they included them the difference would be still greater, as these were met without either additional taxes or increase of Debt. Going to another matter, which had been raised in the present debate, it would be ungenerous, after the admission of mistake on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to refute again his account of the Budgets of 1860. But one simple comparison disposed of the presumed analogy between the present financial proposals and those of that day. For 1878–9 the Revenue was taken at £64,000,000, and for 1860–1 at £72,250,000. Yet, with this sudden increase, necessitated by augmented military charges, the revised Budgets of 1859 and 1860 contemplated no increase of Debt. The entire deficiency of 1860–1 was to be met out of the surplus of 1859. No doubt, the result was disappointing; but that did not affect the principle of the two Budgets.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that in the early part of the Sitting he had given Notice of an Instruction to the Committee in reference to the Property and Income Tax, but he understood that it would be irregular to move it. His object was to ensure the adoption in this country of a system similar to that of America and other countries, by which taxes were levied upon property according to the necessities of each year, and so adjusted as to distinguish between property and income. He had paid a good deal of attention to the subject; and, having lately made a tour in the United States of America, had found that there was a great dissimilarity between their side of the Atlantic and the other. In England property was put out of the account altogether, and the tax was put solely upon income. In America they took no account of income, but put the tax on property alone. He did not advocate such extremes; but thought that a mean

  1749
  might be found between them. He desired to see a tax adopted as the national rate, which should be laid separately upon property as such and income as such, instead of being lumped together as at present; this tax to be so adjusted as to meet the expenditure from year to year, and to fall fairly upon all classes not otherwise sufficiently taxed. This would enable all indirect taxation, except such as was levied upon vicious and detrimental luxuries, to be removed. He classed all alcoholic liquors as detrimental. With regard to tobacco, it was a somewhat debatable ground; but, upon the whole, he thought that it did not do much good, and he considered it might fairly be classed among the detrimental luxuries. No doubt a great deal of our taxation was raised upon what he had called vicious and detrimental luxuries. They raised £33,000,000 upon alcoholic drinks and £8,000,000 upon tobacco, making altogether £41,000,000 upon these two products. In regard to tea and coffee, upon which they raised £4,500,000, there might be some question. Some people thought tippling on tea bad; but, on the whole, these might be classed as harmless. There was only one more subject of indirect taxation regarding which he thought there could be no matter of doubt, and that was the tax upon currants and raisins, which brought in a return of £700,000. It seemed to him that that was a luxury of the poor which ought not to be taxed. Sweeping away, then, the tax on innocent luxuries, he would make up the balance of last year by a property and income tax. The system of taxation which he advocated would be fair and equitable, and would oblige rich possessors of personal property to contribute their due share to the Revenue, which was not now the case. He concurred in the opinion of those who held that the Expenditure of the year should be met by the taxation of the year; and he thought that, with the Income Tax at the moderate rate of 5d. in the pound, we had at our command the means of raising the money we required for that purpose by a fair adjustment of the burdens on income and property, without imposing an excessive rate.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," agreed to.
  WAYS AND NEANS—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Laws relating to the Customs and the Inland Revenue.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
  Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked when the Government were likely to take the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, which stood on the Paper for Thursday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was proposed to proceed with the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill on Thursday, if his right hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Stanley) were able to attend on that evening; but he could not now positively fix the time when the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be taken.

  CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES) BILL.
  (Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir. Attorney General for Ireland.)
  CRIMINAL CODE (INDICTABLE OFFENCES) BILL.

    [BILL 117.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR HENRY JAMES, in referring to the small number of hon. Members present, stated that he was aware that many of his hon. and learned Friends were anxious to have taken part in the discussion upon this Bill, which had come on in rather an unexpected manner, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer having stated a few days ago that he could not tell exactly when it would be brought forward. He should certainly have expected that the second reading of such an important measure would not have been taken without Notice; nevertheless, he should not feel justified on that occasion in moving the adjournment of the debate. He should, however, briefly state his view of the subject. The measure appeared to him to be a great advance upon that of last

    1751
    Session; and it was evident that the Commissioners to whom it had been submitted had discharged their duty carefully and with great ability. He thought, in these circumstances, that but few would wish to subject the majority of the provisions of the Bill to a lengthened criticism. Looking at the Bill, as a whole, it seemed to him that its acceptance by the House would be a great public benefit. So far as he could assist in the passing of the measure, the Government would find no undue opposition from him, and he trusted that no unnecessary obstacle would be thrown in the way by hon. Members on his own side of the House. But there were clauses which required full and grave consideration, and which contained a good deal that was new. The House was aware that by the Bill all repression of crime by means of Common Law must cease, and that there would exist simply the protection given by that measure and by those Statutes which were unrepealed. For his own part, he would be rather disposed to keep the Common Law in existence still. The Bill, also, was not complete. It should either be a codification or consolidation of the law to every purpose, or it should not exist at all. But this Bill was incomplete as a Code or Consolidation Act; for instance, in it there was no mention of such an assembly as that which was repressed by the Irish Convention Act; though he (Sir Henry James) knew that popularly—and especially among the working classes—there was a strong desire to have a complete codification, so that they might know what the law really was. Power was given to the Judges to regulate procedure, pleading, and practice, without the consent of Parliament having been obtained, and he considered this likewise extremely undesirable. Indeed, when the fitting moment came, he should ask the House to discuss whether it was disposed to delegate so important a function of its own to others? The Bill, in the 13th clause, contained a provision in which he could not concur. It was one which would give power to a Judge, in any case where he considered that the offence charged, even if committed, deserved merely nominal punishment, to discharge the prisoner without a verdict. That was a very great power to place in the hands of a Judge. He would sup-
    1752
    pose the case of a Judge who thought, for some reason, that the Legislature had exercised a wrong discretion in rendering certain Acts criminal. In such a case, the power vested in him might be exercised. Then, again, there might be political prosecutions; and if the Judge entertained strong views on one side or on the other, he might, by virtue of this provision, prevent the case going to the jury. Theoretically, the clause conferred a power in favour of the Crown which might be arbitrarily exercised. It might be said that in many cases it would be a hardship to convict a man for a trivial offence which would deserve merely nominal punishment; but in such a case it should be left to the counsel for the Crown to withdraw, or to the jury to acquit. Then, again, by Clause 537, it was sought to give the Attorney General for England a new power—namely, that of staying criminal proceedings at any time before trial on his own motion without investigation. The clause, if adopted, would make the Attorney General master of every prosecution, and would enable him, if he thought fit, to prevent any person prosecuting in the name of the Crown. He was very unwilling, on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, to go into a discussion of its clauses; but he could not help pointing out that it seemed to be very imperfect in its definition of offences. By way of example, he would mention the definition contained in Clause 216 of the crime of bigamy. Bigamy, it said, was to mean the act of any person who while any valid marriage, wherever contracted, subsisted between himself or herself and any other person, went through the form of marriage with any other person in any place in any part of the world. The result of that would be that a British subject born in India—a Mahomedan or Hindoo—who might legally in his own country marry more wives than one, might be prosecuted for bigamy if he visited this country. There was this further provision—that even belief, with cause for belief, in the death of wife or husband occurring more than seven years before the contracting of a second marriage would not protect a person from being prosecuted for the crime of bigamy, if it happened that the first wife or husband was living at the time of the second marriage. To this view of the

    1753
    law he strongly objected. The provisions of the Bill in relation to unlawful assemblies and rioting also appeared to him open to objection. In reference to the former, the learned Commissioners stated in a memorandum that their definition probably went a little further than the present law. It appeared to him to go a great deal further. If three persons met to carry out a common purpose, however good, and if they conducted themselves in such a way as to cause any person in the neighbourhood, however timid or foolish, to fear a disturbance of the peace, those three persons could be held to constitute an unlawful assembly, and might be liable to a year's imprisonment. But even that provision was harmless compared with the one on rioting. If a Justice of the Peace approached a gathering of 12 persons as near, in his own estimation, as he could safely come, which might not be within earshot at all, and read the Riot Act, those 12 persons, although they might not know that the Riot Act had been read, if they did not disperse, would be liable to penal servitude for life. These instances would suffice to show that the Bill, although, on the whole, framed with a care, a consideration, and an ability which entitled the learned Commissioners to their best acknowledgments, was, nevertheless, one which ought to be received with great caution, and carefully scrutinized. Among minor matters calling for attention, he might point to the great amount of power which the Bill granted to the Court rather than to the jury. There was this further point to be considered—whether the punishments under the Bill were not, in many cases, too heavy in proportion to the offences. Even in cases where the same punishments had existed before, the House ought not, therefore, blindly to accept them. With regard to whipping, he should be sorry to see enacted, or reenacted, so many instances of that corporal punishment for offences without due deliberation. These were some of the matters which he thought would form the subjects of discussion when the House went into Committee on the Bill. He believed that the measure, whether amended then or after further consideration, would prove beneficial to the public. The difficulty, however, of passing in one Session a measure of some
    1754
    600 clauses, many of them pregnant with important matter for discussion, was obvious. Hence the suggestion he made, which his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General seemed rather to have misunderstood, that the Bill should be disposed of in parts. Parliament taking up the work of revision one Session at the point where it had been loft the previous one. He trusted his hon. and learned Friend would not insist upon the whole Bill or none this Session; but he could assure him that, in making the suggestion he did, he was animated by no feeling of hostility to the Bill, but only by a desire that the House should not overlook in it any point worthy of its attention.
    MR. GRANTHAMthought the speech which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton had just delivered was the best answer that could be given to that which he delivered a few nights ago. The objections he had urged might be met by Amendments which, when placed on the Paper, would be considered by the Government. Many of them, no doubt, would be accepted; but they would not require much discussion, and in that way very great progress would be made with the Bill. A Bill of this description could only be competently discussed by legal men; and having undergone the most careful consideration for three or four mouths of some of the most eminent Judges, it was not necessary that the clauses should be discussed over and over again. If everyone who spoke kept to the point, he did not see why they might not in seven or eight nights dispose of all the main points of the Bill. With regard to bigamy, for instance, the objection of his hon. and learned Friend might easily be disposed of by an Amendment which he might place on the Paper at once. And so on, with regard to Rules and Orders. It would not take long to discuss that matter. He thought it most desirable that a large discretion should be given to the Judges to order whipping, as the infliction of that punishment had proved very beneficial. As to Judges discharging prisoners without passing sentence, that was giving them only a little more extended power than they had at present, when they could discharge them upon passing a nominal sentence. In conclusion, he hoped that hon. Gentlemen who took part in this discussion

    1755
    would follow the example of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, and make short speeches, so that there might be a possibility of passing the Bill this Session.
    MR. HOPWOODremarked, that this Bill was a great improvement on the Bill of last Session; it was more simple in language, and went more directly to the point. They might, therefore, congratulate themselves that they had not been induced to pass the Bill of last year en bloc. The Bill, if passed, would be a great act of legal reform, which would reflect lustre upon the Session, and be a great advantage to the public. He feared, however, that at the "Massacre of the Innocents" the Bill would be found to take its place in the limbo of abandoned Bills. But in that case it would be the Government who would be responsible. They could pass it by declaring it to be their winning horse, and if they did so he would give them all the aid in his power. They could pass it by saying they thought much more of it than of the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, the Bankruptcy Bill, or the many other Bills which, if persevered in, would be obstacles to the passing of this measure. Seven days of Parliamentary time had been spoken of for passing the measure. But where would they get seven days? If they meant to pass the Bill, they ought to put it in the front of battle; but he did not see any sign of that. They had begun the discussion to-night by an accident. The measure had been seven or eight months before the Commissioners, but it had been before the House only a month. He was not going to act on the servile doctrine that because Judges had gone through it he must take the measure on trust. Judges had too great a proneness to settle things as matters of arbitrary law. On the perfection with which the House did its business in discussing this Bill during the present Session the law of England would probably depend for the next 20 or 30 years. They were opening up, not questions of mere technicality, but matters of vital concern to everybody in the community. He trusted that the non-legal Members of the House would take part in the discussion of the clauses. In the case of infanticide a new offence was created, and this was a subject which would certainly give rise to con-
    1756
    siderable discussion. The Bill professed to be a Code. In his opinion, however, a Code ought to be complete; whereas this was an incomplete one, for one section expressly said that people indictable under other Statutes were to remain so. Would his hon. and learned Friends the Law Officers of the Crown state what Statutes were, to their knowledge, outside the present measure? The question of examining prisoners, again, was said to be likely to be debated at considerable length. He thought the Bill ought to have been dealt with by a Select Committee of that House, and not by an extraneous body, however eminent.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, he was anxious to disabuse the minus of hon. Members of the idea that the Government was desirous that this Bill should pass without full consideration. The House was not asked to accept the measure without a complete examination. What had been done with advantage to the House was, that trained lawyers and distinguished Judges had gone through that which they believed to represent the Criminal Law of this country, and had presented to Parliament the result of their labours. But the House was not called upon to take the result of those labours without careful examination. It was admitted by the last speaker that this Bill would effect a great legal reform and confer a benefit on the whole community; but, then, many of the observations he had made seemed to have been intended to show the impossibility of passing any Code whatever, and that they must at once abandon their attempt, because the magnitude of the subject was so great that it could never be submitted to complete discussion. Now, there was a great deal of that measure which would be accepted by the legal Members of the House without discussion—that was to say, the Code, as presented to them, would be taken to represent to the minds of lawyers that which was the existing law. Of course, there were some points on which differences of opinion would arise. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton had suggested one of them. But that was a matter for discussion when, they went into Committee, rather than upon the second reading of the measure. What was the mode in which they were to deal with the Bill? If the House were to go through the whole of

    1757
    the Criminal Law of England in order to see whether it could not amend every part of it, it would be impossible to pass any Code. But if the Bill were approached in the spirit in which the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had approached it, the work before them might be accomplished, and the real points of difficulty which would arise would be found comparatively few. With regard to the definition of bigamy, to which the hon. and learned Member for Taunton had referred, the object of those who had framed this Code was not to alter the law of bigamy, but to present it in a form in which it should represent the existing law of England; and those who had charge of the Bill would be only too glad to accept any verbal Amendment which would bring the definition of bigamy contained in the Bill into closer conformity with the existing law, if it was really faulty. He could not, however, concur, on the question of principle, with the hon. and learned Member for Taunton's view of the law of bigamy. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton appeared to think that an honest belief that the first marriage had been dissolved by death, although the second occurred within the limit of seven years, was a complete defence to a charge of bigamy. Now, he did not believe that was the law; but thought that, for wise purposes, the Legislature, considering the importance of the marriage tie and the ruinous results to the supposed wife and children which might ensue from the supposed marriage, had made the law of bigamy very strict. And though the question might not be free from doubt—and Judges had differed about it—that was a subject which might be fairly discussed in Committee, and was certainly no reason why they should not attempt to define what the law of bigamy was. On the contrary, if there was one branch of the law more than another as to which uncertainty was an evil, it was that relating to marriage. Then, again, with regard to unlawful assemblies, if the definition contained in the Bill was wrong, any hon. Member could propose in Committee to amend it. If they were to postpone the consideration of such a measure as this till some happy Session which would be so perfectly free from other and more exciting topics that the House could devote all its time and at-
    1758
    tention to the passing of a Criminal Code, they would have to wait till a time very closely resembling the Greek Kalends. He thought, therefore, that they had better apply their minds to the work now that it was actually before them, oven although the audience might be thin, as it was apt to be when strict questions of law were being discussed. He admitted that the definition of the law of murder, as to which there was considerable difference of view, could not be disposed of without discussion. To leave so serious a crime undefined was attended with very grave inconveniences; and now that a Bill was brought forward which attempted—with what success would be seen by-and-by—to define it, the House would do well to give it their best consideration. The only chance to obtain uniformity in the law was by the adoption of a Code. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Taunton objected to the authority sought to be given to the Judges to frame rules as to practice, pleading, and procedure. Such a power they exercised already; and if it were decided that those rules should be the subject of enactment and be embodied in the Bill, what possible hope, he asked, was there that the Bill could pass this Session? It was, in his view, sufficient that the rules should be laid before Parliament, and that anyone of them could be objected to. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) expressed a desire that the Bill should pass, and yet he was in favour of putting it off to another occasion. In that suggestion Her Majesty's Government could not concur. The law ought to be certain; it ought to be known; and if it was disobeyed it ought to be enforced: and it was because the law ought to be known and enforced that the Code was presented to the House.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDregarded the Bill before the House as a great improvement on that of last year. It was capable of improvement; but, taking it altogether, it would, he thought, commend itself to every lawyer. Last year's Bill attempted to define everything, but really defined nothing; while the definitions of the present Bill were, upon the whole, accurate. What he would suggest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially to every legal Member, was to go carefully

    1759
    through the Bill, section after section, and to put down opposite to each section what they objected to, and what Amendments they proposed; and, probably, no hon. Member would come forward with so large a number of Amendments as would seriously impede the progress of the Bill through the House. There were, however, defects in the Bill which ought to be removed. He thought it extended too far the latitude given to Judges. Under it, their discretion would range from such a punishment as penal servitude for life to the infliction of a day's imprisonment. A most dangerous power was also given to the Committee of Judges to frame Rules of Procedure. That extended to alterations in the principles upon which the Criminal Law was administered. "Procedure," as the Bill stood, included all the provisions relating to the conduct of a trial, the examination of witnesses, and even the examination of the prisoner, all of which were subject to be altered and modified by the Rules. He thought these powers should be limited and defined. He objected to that part of the Bill which enabled prisoners to give evidence, and was of opinion that the principle which it involved should be eliminated from the Bill and be subjected to discussion by itself. If that part of the Bill were removed, together with the provisions relating to a Court of Appeal, the chances of the Bill becoming law this Session would be improved. He intended to do all he could to facilitate the passing of the measure.
    MR. GREGORYthought the Bill a model of draftmanship, and although it would require alterations, they must be very carefully considered; otherwise the measure would be injured. He held that it was incumbent upon them to make the law, so far as they could, clear and intelligible, and that hon. Members should promote the adoption of the Bill by every means in their power. There was, he thought, a general concurrence admitting the value of the principles of the Bill, and he hoped that its provisions would be discussed in a liberal spirit. Hon. Members ought to consider how important were the matters with which the measure dealt; and he hoped that they would not deal with the details or Amendments as was sometimes done by the votes of those who had heard no-
    1760
    thing of the discussion of them. Even if they worked hard, the Bill would consume considerable time before it was passed; as, no doubt, there were many details in it which would affect not only the liberties but the lives of the Queen's subjects, and these ought to be examined carefully, but with no obstructive motive. It had been said in some quarters that heavier penalties than could at present be inflicted were meted out to offences by this Bill; but it should also be noted in many instances the penalties were mitigated.
    MR. HERSCHELLhoped he should not be suspected of desiring to obstruct the Bill. He had a Motion on the Paper relating to the subject for a long time, and he therefore rejoiced when it was taken in hand. It was to be remembered that fair criticism on the second reading might be calculated to facilitate the passing of a Bill. The Government ought to keep in view the difficulties they had to meet, for they could not be evaded by ignoring them. It was no use thinking that the Bill would pass through the House without very considerable discussion, as he was quite sure that such a view could only be doomed to disappointment. It was true that the Bill was, in some sense, a codification of the law; but they could not be expected to codify obsolete absurdities, and, therefore, the Bill was, in a great degree, legislative. Even although they might not altogether like the Bill as drawn, unless they thought it would do wrong, they should abstain from indulging in verbal criticism; otherwise, it would be impossible to codify the law at all. In saying that, however, he wished the Government to remember that many objections would be taken to the Bill in detail; and unless they had taken that into account, he warned them that they had better abandon the Bill for the present year rather than waste time in discussing it. It was useless to think that the Bill would be easily got through. It was open to those who objected to capital punishment, and those who objected to Hogging, to raise those questions; while the examination of a prisoner, which the Bill proposed to permit, and the Court of Criminal Appeal which it set up, as well as the extension of the jurisdiction of Quarter Sessions, must necessarily lead

    1761
    to discussion. He would, however, rather postpone codification than not deal with procedure and other matters which it had been suggested might be deferred. If the Bill was to be gone on with, it was inevitable that a good deal of time must be given to it. He did not for a moment say that the Bill was not satisfactory and extremely well done; but that was no reason why they should not criticize it in provisions which they thought objectionable. For example, he thought that the provisions with respect to bigamy might call for consideration. He quite agreed with the Solicitor General that the existing law with regard to bigamy was very much open to doubt, particularly upon the point with regard to seven years' absence. They had one decision one way, and one decision the other way, and the unfortunate fact was that the framers of the Bill proceeded upon the worst of those decisions, and the one least consonant with common sense. They had made it a criminal offence to re-marry within seven years, even with reasonable ground for believing that husband or wife was dead, if it should turn out not to be the case. And he could not conceive why the 64th section should make it unlawful for a man to take peaceable possession "by night" of that to which he believed he was lawfully entitled. In some cases, men could be more severely punished for a conspiracy to commit an offence than for actually committing the offence itself. This, he thought, was a defect which ought to be remedied. With regard to the pleading practice and procedure, he was of opinion that the Judges ought only to be allowed to settle by means of rules the details of the general plan which Parliament had laid down. He might add, in conclusion, that his sole object in making these few observations was to assist, and not to obstruct, the passing of the Bill.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, it was not the fact, as was stated by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Hopwood), that those who supported the Bill thought that it ought to be passed without discussion. On the contrary, he held that all the supporters of the Bill entirely concurred in the view expressed by the Solicitor General that the House should not accept the measure without complete examination. He (Sir George
    1762
    Bowyer), of course, entertained the greatest respect for the opinions of the learned Judges who had considered the Bill, yet it was not for the House of Commons to delegate its authority to Judges or anyone else; and it was the duty of the Members of that House to do the best they could as legislators, without any authorities whatever. The hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had started the idea of leaving out some of the most important parts of the present measure in order that they might be dealt with in a separate Bill; but he could not consent to that proposal, because, in adopting it, hon. Members would be abandoning the most necessary part of their duty; for the Code ought to be a complete Corpus juris of the Criminal Law of England, and unless it was complete it would be worse than nothing. Again, unless the whole measure were postponed, until the parts alluded to by the hon. and learned Member were settled, the remaining portion would be no longer a Code. It would be but an incomplete work, and the House would do better to let it alone. The hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) had suggested that as the punishment of death was included in the Code great delay might arise, because anyone who objected to that punishment as an abstract principle, would raise a discussion; but the question whether it should exist was so large as to require separate discussion, and he would suggest to hon. Members who might have an objection to its infliction that in passing this Bill their opinion would in no way be compromised, inasmuch as there would afterwards be time to raise that great question which branched off into so many others, political, religious, and social. For if everyone was to ventilate, upon the discussion of this Bill, his own opinions and crotchets with regard to the punishment of death and other matters, it would be impossible to go on with the measure with any prospect of getting through the work either in the present or in any other Session. It would be well if, in the discussion of the question, hon. Members would adopt a system somewhat different to that which was sometimes assumed. He meant a more colloquial form of discussion, something like that which prevailed in the Venetian Senate; of course, not the form in use in that Senate, where no one was

    1763
    allowed to make a speech, but had to state his opinion only, after the manner of a Judge. It would be easy for hon. Gentlemen to express their opinions briefly, in a colloquial, quiet manner, without making long oratorical speeches. He agreed with the Solicitor General as to the extreme desirability of passing the Bill in one Session; for if it were postponed from one Session to another, possibly from one Parliament to another, it would be but a piecemeal production, and would lack that unity which a Code ought to possess. There were instances in history of Law Codes, such as the Code of the Emperor Justinian and the Code of Napoleon; and it would be found that those, and other like enactments, had always been passed in one Act. Had this not been so, they would have been altered and maimed, and would not have had the same unity as a Corpus juris ought to have—namely, one harmonious whole. Therefore, he trusted that the House would endeavour by every means possible to pass the measure during the present Session, a result which could only be arrived at by their looking at it as a matter of business and not as one of debate. He admitted that the Bill introduced last year had appeared to him to be imperfect, inasmuch as it contained inaccuracies and absurdities obvious to all lawyers, most certainly to those engaged in the administration of Criminal Law; but it had since undergone a most salutary change, and by the industry, labour, and learning of those appointed to revise it, it had been converted into a piece of legislation of which the country and the Legal Profession had every reason to be proud. Notwithstanding that there might be points which would require careful consideration, he doubted whether the Amendments of private Members, with a few exceptions, would be useful; and he believed that if, instead of proposing them, they would submit those Amendments to the Attorney General or Solicitor General, more good would be done. He did not mean to say that hon. Members would be bound to submit to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown; and, in his judgment, if hon. Members considered it their duty to persevere with their Amendments contrary to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, they would only be exercising their unquestionable right, which, very
    1764
    properly, ought to be exercised. The Code must be, not the act of an individual, but of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons must consider it and not delegate its powers to any particular Government. Some of the criticisms bestowed upon the Bill appeared to be worthy of great consideration; and, for his own part, it seemed to him that the penalties contained in the Code were unnecessarily severe, and that sufficient margin was not left for cases in which mitigation of punishment might be advisable. This power of mitigation must be left to someone; for it was impossible to be acquainted at all with the administration of criminal justice without seeing that in a great many cases there were circumstances which could not be embodied in any Code or law, but which must be left to the consideration of the Judge who wished to administer justice tempered with mercy; and to the Judge, therefore, power would have to be given to sentence a prisoner to less severe punishment, under some circumstances, than it would otherwise be. With regard to the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Herschell) on the crime of bigamy, he did not think he had shown sufficient grounds for enabling persons to contract another marriage within the seven years expressed in the Bill, considering the serious effects a second marriage might have upon the life of the former wife or husband. After seven years, there might be a fair presumption that the wife or husband was dead; but still the second marriage would be invalid and the children illegitimate. The first marriage would, of course, be the only valid one; and although the person married again would not be indicted for bigamy, the children, as he had said before, would be illegitimate. All this showed how important it was to limit the power of contracting a second marriage. With regard to the other point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), as to whether foreign subjects of Her Majesty would be liable to be indicted for the crime of bigamy when they came to this country for the commission of an act which was not contrary to the law of their own country, he (Sir George Bowyer) thought that the less the House went into details of the kind at that stage of the Bill the

    1765
    better. He thought that hon. Members should approach the Bill with a determination to put their shoulders to the wheel, and with the endeavour to get it through this Session; that they should allow their own personal opinions and convictions to remain in abeyance, and restrict themselves to a quiet mode of debate, with the certainty that, if need be, a Bill could afterwards be brought in to amend the Code. By that means, the Bill could be passed that Session, and it would then remain a great honour and trophy to Her Majesty's Government, and all who had taken part in facilitating its passage would be able to look back with satisfaction upon their work.
    MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSalso hoped they would pass the Bill this Session. If obstructions were resorted to, the Bill could not pass. If the Government were really in earnest, and showed their earnestness by giving a reasonable time for discussion, bethought they could pass the Bill this Session. It would be a dereliction of duty, if Members abstained from discussing those important principles on which the Bill would alter the law. For instance, it would be a mistake to pass without discussion that part of the Bill which would allow the accused to become witnesses, or that part which would allow an appeal in criminal cases. But he thought the House would agree with him that if they were to discuss every doubtful principle of the law with the view of amending it by this Bill codification would become impossible. The law should be accepted as it at present stood, and hon. Members should not introduce the discussion of principles such as punishment by the lash and capital punishment. The Bill had been crude when first brought up; but the Government had since then obtained the assistance of lawyers the most able, the most experienced, and the most trusted, for the purpose of drafting and completing it. This was not a Party measure; but sometimes measures were calculated to bring credit to the Government, and those who were against the Government were thereby greatly tempted to prevent the Government of the day having the credit. He hoped hon. Members would rise above that feeling, and be influenced by the sentiment that the credit of Parliament was involved in this measure.
    1766
    He hoped that, for the credit of Parliament, the Bill would be passed this Session.
    MR. CHARLEYcongratulated the Government on the introduction of this Bill, and the House on the spirit in which the Bill had been discussed on both sides. He hoped it would become law this Session. Portions of the Bill were deserving of great approval, the definition of counterfeit coin, for example. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had spoken of the provisions relative to infanticide in the Bill as if they were entirely new. But he would remind the House that similar provisions were contained in a Bill—the Infanticide Bill—which he had carried in four successive Sessions through the second reading, and he rejoiced that the Code contained them. There were a few points in the Bill to which he felt obliged to take exception. He objected to the omission of the Lord's Day Act, which was not, as had been said, an obsolete Act. He was opposed to the introduction into the jurisprudence of this country of the system of examining the accused, which was one of the worst features of the French Criminal Code. The provisions of the Bill relating to a new Court of Appeal would require very careful discussion, as the motions for new trial in criminal cases which they proposed to permit might introduce into our Criminal Law all the subtleties, refinements, and delays of nisi prius. In his own experience, the clemency of the Crown had always been exorcised in such a manner as to meet any defeat of justice in the verdict of a jury in a criminal case. Though the Bill required close consideration, he sincerely trusted it would become law during the present Session.
    MR. COLEsaid, he did not wish to speak in a hostile way of the Bill, but warned the Government not to suppose that the measure could be passed without a great deal of verbal criticism. He feared that the Government would find, when the Bill should come to be considered in Committee, that so many Amendments would be proposed that it would be exceedingly difficult to carry it this Session, especially if they intended to retain the new proposals contained in the measure. There were three most important innovations suggested in the Bill which would require the most

    1767
    careful consideration. A change was proposed with regard to punishments which he cordially approved—he referred to the rule which would limit a cumulative punishment by imprisonment to two years. This was a step in the right direction, as any sentence of imprisonment beyond 18 months was terribly severe; at the same time, he (Mr. Cole) was most anxious that Judges and Recorders should have the power, which formerly existed, of giving three years' penal servitude. At present, nothing less than five years could be given. He should also wish that a power should be given to give five years' penal servitude in cases where a former conviction was proved. At present, nothing less than seven could be given, which, in his opinion, was often much too severe a sentence, where the former conviction was for some trivial offence, and, perhaps, many years ago. Of the provisions relating to bigamy he could not express approval. They would require to be altered in several important particulars. So far as that part of the Bill which was merely a codification was concerned, he had no doubt the House would be anxious to assist the Attorney General in passing the measure, though even here there was a good deal of alteration which required consideration; but with regard to the changes that had been made in the law, opinions were likely to be diverse, and it might, therefore, be wise to throw them out altogether.
    MR. BULWERreminded the House that the question under consideration was whether they should read the Bill a second time. He had heard no objection to this course as yet; and he thought a great many of the remarks they had listened to might, with advantage, have been deferred until they were in Committee. As there appeared to be such a general desire to pass the Bill, it would, perhaps, be as well to accept the statement of the Commissioners, that the law at present was as it was represented to be in the Code, and to leave Amendments and innovations for future consideration.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, a good many lawyers in the House seemed to think that nobody knew anything about justice but themselves. But the public knew what justice was, and required some alteration of the present state of things. There
    1768
    were, no doubt, difficulties in the way; but he hoped the House would not lose this opportunity of dealing with the subject. He therefore appealed to the legal Members not to delay by criticism, suitable for Committee, the passing of a Bill to secure a much-needed improvement in the administration of the law.
    MR. W. S. STANHOPEagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Penryn (Mr. Cole) in the suggestion that, in Committee, the minimum sentence of penal servitude should be reduced to three years.
    MR. MUNDELLAthought there was a general consensus of opinion as to the opportuneness of the Bill before the House, and he hoped they would all facilitate its progress as much as possible. There had been for some time a widespread feeling in its favour, and no one could doubt that if it became law, as he hoped it would, there would be a great improvement in the administration of justice.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER): Sir, I do not propose to offer more than a very few observations upon the debate to which we have listened. When I came down here, I expected that there would be some objection raised to the principle of codification generally; but, so far from that being the case, there has been, on the part of the House, nothing but universal consent to that principle. I might also have expected that, although the Bill has been examined by a great number of hon. Gentlemen most competent to form an estimate of it, and to discover any defect which it might contain, some material fault might be pointed out; but that has not been the case. As a matter of fact, no material defect has been found in it. When the discussion commenced I thought it possible that some hon. Members, although not open opponents of the measure, might have a lurking inclination not to advance it, perhaps to oppose its progress; but, on the contrary, there has been shown a general, and, I am sure, a bonâ fide, disposition to facilitate the passing of the Bill into law. Before I comment more particularly upon the measure I will make a remark upon the difference that has been noticed between the measure of the present Session and that of the last. Some hon. Members have drawn a comparison between the two,

    1769
    very much to the disadvantage of the latter; hut, in my opinion, the strictures on the Bill of last Session are hardly merited. I do not think it was open to the objection of vagueness that has been urged against it, nor do I think it was open to the objection that it inflicted graver penalties than the law previously authorized. But I have no doubt that the Bill is a great improvement upon that of last Session; for, after all, it could not have been otherwise, considering the nature of the Commission to which it was relegated and the immense amount of labour bestowed upon it by that Commission. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams) is rather offended that I, on one occasion, offered some sort of apology for the Commissioners who brought so much learning to bear upon this measure. No doubt, I was very wrong in doing so, in the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman. But I did nothing of the kind, and, therefore, I think my hon. and learned Friend must have entirely misunderstood me; for I said that the Commissioners by whom this matter had been investigated, and who were asked to bring to bear upon it their learning and ability, were men of the very greatest eminence to be found in this country. I said, however, that it was a matter for regret that the Lord Chief Justice of England had not been one of the authors and revisers of the Bill; and I do think that if he could have been one of the Members of the Commission it would have given very great satisfaction. But it is one thing to regret the absence from the Commission of a lawyer so experienced, so eminent, and so illustrious as the Lord Chief Justice, and another to offer an apology for the Members of the Commission. We are to-night engaged in discussing the principle of the Bill, and in that respect the discussion has been very satisfactory; for to the principle of the Bill no one has in the slightest degree objected, while, as regards the details, these ought properly to be reserved for consideration in Committee. The object, of course, which the framers of the Bill had in view was to reduce a portion of the Criminal Law to reasonable dimensions by codification—I say a portion of the Criminal Law, because, if you attempt to do too much, you will do nothing; and the intention has been to reduce it
    1770
    within a reasonable compass, and, at the same time, to make it plain, simple, and intelligible to minds uneducated to the law. Seeing that some hon. Members who are not lawyers have exhibited an interest in this measure, I am very desirous that their interest should continue, and that they should take part in its discussion; for if I find that the law has been made clear and intelligible to them, I shall be certain that one of the objects which the Government had in introducing the Bill has been attained. If we do nothing more than make the Criminal Law plain, simple, and easy of comprehension, we may not accomplish anything very heroic, but we shall, I think, do a great good to the community; because it is desirable that all law, especially the Criminal Law, should be made certain and intelligible to the people, so that they may understand what acts are right, and what are prohibited, and what acts, if committed by them, render them liable to punishment. The Bill is, substantially, drawn upon the lines of the Bill of Sir James Stephen, to whom the greatest credit is due. Besides codifying and simplifying the law, the Bill was designed to effect considerable improvements and many marked changes of the law. Some hon. Members had objected to the proposed changes, and had given their opinion that it would be well for the Government to be content with codifying the existing law only and allow the alterations to stand over for a more convenient season; but I entirely dissent from that view, because I think you would be but perpetuating absurdities in many instances if you were to re-enact the existing law, although you might reduce it in compass and simplify its language. But if there are grave and obvious defects in the law, whilst you are framing a measure of this kind why should you not remove them? Once you are convinced that any alterations of the law are required, I do not, for my own part, see that it would be wise to neglect your opportunity of introducing them. Now, the Bill introduces several radical alterations, and I thought that perhaps during this discussion I should hear very many objections to them. But, instead of that, I have only heard objections to one or two of the proposed changes. I will mention some of the alterations proposed by the Bill. There

    1771
    is an alteration of the law as regards cumulative penalties and minimum punishments, and a provision with regard to the doctrine of a woman being supposed to act under compulsion of her husband, which doctrine had been swept away; then there is an alteration in the distinction between misdemeanour and felony, to all of which no objections have been raised. Again, there is a limitation of the acts to be construed into the crime of murder; and that, practically speaking, is one which makes a man liable to be indicted for murder if he has intended to take away life, and in that case only. Then there is the alteration in the law with regard to infanticide, and that change has been met with entire approval. Further, there is a simplication of the law of theft, placing it on an entirely different basis from that on which it formerly stood; and the simplification of all the Acts involving dishonesty and forgery. No objection was raised to that. Then we have the Court of Criminal Appeal, and the alterations giving a new trial in criminal cases, and providing for the examination of prisoners; besides that most important alteration of the law which makes criminal pleading—now so cumbersome and, I will add, absurd—perfectly plain and easy. If there were any serious objections to this measure, we should have heard them; but we have not, and are, therefore, encouraged to believe that they do not exist. Some hon. Members, however, have objections to three of the proposed changes—namely, the proposal to alter the Courts of Criminal Appeal, and to give an appeal in criminal cases where such appeal is not now allowed; the provisions with regard to new trials; and, lastly, those with respect to the examination of prisoners. Now, I say, without hesitation, that all these changes are of a radical character, and demand not only discussion, but the very gravest and earnest consideration, before they are passed into law. But there will be no difficulty in discussing them, for the Government does not grudge the time which will be necessary for that purpose; and such questions, therefore, can be disposed of, I will not say at once, but after a discussion of reasonable duration. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) for his generous and encouraging
    1772
    speech, in which he has suggested that there were some difficulties as regard the sections which relate to bigamy, to unlawful assemblies, and to riot. So far as bigamy is concerned, I have followed the objections of my hon. and learned Friend to the definition of the crime, and during the course of the discussion I have not discovered the answer to them; but then I will not say an answer does not exist, because I have the greatest confidence in the framers of the Bill, and doubt not that if I put myself in communication with them an answer will be furnished. With regard to unlawful assemblies and riot, I do not quite go along with my hon. and learned Friend; but the law on this point being but a repetition of the old law, there can be no need for any lengthy discussion about it, and if he convinces me that his view is a correct one, a few strokes of the pen will do all that he wants. Of course, it is very important, as was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), to consider at this stage what course will be taken and what chance there is of passing the Bill. I myself think it has a good chance, because it has met with universal approval, not only in this House, but in the Press and in the country generally. I think the House will come to the conclusion that it would not be wise or right to discuss at any length what I may call the drafting or codification part of the Bill, that part of the Bill which merely states the existing law, and renders it simple; and it is my opinion that the House will do well to take the plain draft which has been very carefully prepared by persons most competent to deal with it. If you accept the codification of the Bill, there only remain to be dealt with the alterations which it effects in the law; the whole of them, I think, are on the Table of the House and have been read by hon. Members, and it does not appear to me that there will be much discussion upon them. The great bulk of them have at once been accepted as a vast improvement; and although, with regard to the rest of them, a discussion will take place, it need not be of undue length. I hope the Bill may be proceeded with in the spirit of its framers, and in that of the hon. Members who have this evening expressed a desire to

    1773
    facilitate its passage into law. On my part, certainly, I will undertake to give every consideration to the Amendments which may be suggested; but I hope such Amendments will be placed by hon. Members on the Table as soon as possible. Further, I trust that they will not be left for verbal communication, because it is very much easier to deal with them in the usual way than when they are sprung upon one, so to speak, in the Lobby of the House, or at dinner time, or even in the course of the debate. If that is done, and if the Government, as I have no doubt they will be, are willing to yield to every reasonable Amendment without trouble and without any undue anxiety to carry their point by the mere force of numbers, then I think the Bill will rapidly advance.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Matthew Ridley.)
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL.

    [BILL 68.] CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that when the Bill was last before the Committee the hon. Member was not present, and the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper was somewhat altered by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The alteration had been made at his (the Attorney General's) suggestion. The Amendment, he believed, was to the effect that where a prosecution was not being duly proceeded with application should be allowed to a Court or Judge. He, on the other hand, believed that the best course would be an application to the Attorney General, and that view having been communicated to the Home Secretary, the clause of the hon. Member was accordingly altered. But it turned out that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had a very decided objection to the substitution of the Attorney General for the Court or Judge. He (the Attorney General) was of opinion that where application was to be made for the purpose
    1774
    of showing that a prosecution was not being duly proceeded with by the Public Prosecutor or his assistant, the authority to whom such appeal was made should be the Attorney General, and not a learned Judge. Still, the matter was not one of much importance; and as the hon. Member desired his clause to stand as it was, it being necessary that there should be power of application to some authority, he was quite willing to waive the opinion which he entertained in favour of allowing the clause to be restored to its original form. He was, therefore, willing that the Amendment of the hon. Member should be accepted.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was glad to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was prepared to accept the Amendment to this, the 9th clause of the Bill, of which he (Mr. Newdegate) had given Notice, and which would restore the clause to the form in which it originally stood on the Notice Paper in his (Mr. Newdegate's) name. He could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that, except as acting upon the advice of the highest possible authorities on this subject, he should not have presumed to have given Notice of the clause. The object of the clause was to assimilate the position of the Public Prosecutor, who, under the clause, would be appointed for England, as regarded the Courts of Law, to the position which the Lord Advocate occupied in Scotland. In 1872, in the case of Angus Mackintosh, the Lord Advocate had refused his concurrence in the matter of criminal prosecution for illegal detention, which Angus Mackintosh desired to institute. Mackintosh presented a petition to the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, who entertained the petition, and called the Lord Advocate before them. The Lord Advocate appeared, and explained the grounds of his having refused his concurrence in the case which Mackintosh desired to submit to the Court. The Court held that the grounds of refusal were sufficient, but did not give this decision until the case, arising out of the petition of Mackintosh, had been fully argued. The Court thus decided that, although by custom the Lord Advocate was the sole prosecutor in criminal cases, the right of the subject to appeal to the Court, and the right of the Court to decide upon the subject's

    1775
    appeal, were in no way barred by the position and function of the Public Prosecutor in ordinary cases. It was this right of appeal to the Supreme Court which he (Mr. Newdegate) was glad to find that Her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to preserve to the people of England, as it had been preserved to the people of Scotland.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

  GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [Bill 143.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
  GAME LAWS AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [Bill 143.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORthought that any hon. Member who had studied the Game Law Statutes would not be surprised that the Government were about to mitigate their severity; their only cause for wonder, however, was that such mitigation was confined to Scotland. He believed there prevailed in the House a sort of general impression, on the part of hon. Members who knew not precisely what the Statutes contained, that the Game Laws were about as reasonable and moderate a Code as might be imagined. He would, however, read the penalties imposed by the two Acts with which the Government proposed to deal. The Act of the 9 Geo. IV., c. 69, among other penalties, decreed that when three or more men went out armed at night for the purpose of poaching, this offence was a misdemeanour, and rendered them liable to 17 years' penal servitude. For night poaching (simply) the third offence was a misdemeanour, and punishable with seven years' penal servitude. The Act, known as Lord Stradbroke's, passed in 1844–7 & 8, Vict., c. 29—extended these penalties to anyone who should commit the offence, so called, on the high roads, or, in fact, in any public place. In fact, there were not in the civilized world laws of such severity—he might say atrocity—relating to game as these were. Now, considering that Blackstone laid it down as
    "indisputable, that the wild denizens of the field, marsh, and forest, known to lawyers under the name of feræ natures, are the common property of men, he their degree what it may,"
    1776
    the gross injustice of such laws became more manifest. It amounted, in fact, to a statutory confiscation of the property of the common law rights of the people, who were then punished with such savage severity for taking that which should belong to them. In France and Germany their Game Laws were formerly as bad, or worse; but they had been modified, and this country alone retained these severe and atrocious laws. No wonder that Blackstone went on to say they
    "were the last and most odious remembrancers of feudal institutions, and calculated to import the savage tyranny of William Rufus and King John into the mild and civilized era of the Hanoverian Georges."
    But why, he asked, were the Game Laws to be mitigated in Scotland alone? It appeared that a farmer had been there recently sentenced to imprisonment for snaring rabbits at night, and that had given rise to the present measure for the mitigation of the law with respect to that part of the country. But was there no need of mitigation in England? He would give the House two illustrations. At the Oxford Quarter Sessions a labourer was charged with night poaching who had been twice convicted under the Act; in neither instance did he resist apprehension; and the Court, having taken this circumstance into account, gave him 12 months' hard labour instead of a long term of penal servitude, and, of course, he had to find security against a repetition of the offence. The second case had occurred at the Gloucester Assizes, where Mr. Justice Lindley sentenced a man named William Turner to six months' imprisonment with hard labour, Henry Weston to 12 months' hard labour, and William Spires to seven years' penal servitude for night poaching. They had taken one piebald pheasant. They were undefended. He (Mr. P. A. Taylor) had received dozens of letters referring to similar cases, but had always made it a rule to decline to bring them before the House, replying, at the same time, that while such was the state of the law it was not for him to complain of the action of those who had to administer it, and that endeavours must be made to change the law itself. There was nothing new in the modification proposed by the Government; on the contrary, two Committees had already reported in favour of an alteration,

    1777
    one in 1846, and the other in 1872. The Committee which sat in 1846 said in their Report—
    "Resolved, that, in the opinion of this Committee, no person convicted of night poaching under s. 1, 9 Geo. IV., c. 69, whose offence is unattended by circumstances of aggravation, should be subjected to the punishment of transportation;"
    and again—
    "Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee that no person convicted of night poaching, under the 1st s. 9 Geo. IV., c. 68, should be required to find sureties for not repeating such offence."
    Again, in 1872, a similar recommendation was given by a Committee, that
    "where offenders were not armed and more than two in number, discretion should be given to the Court to inflict a fine instead of imprisonment, and that the convicted person should no longer be required to find security against re-commission of the offence."
    How utterly exceptional was the condition of the Game Laws might be judged from the evidence given before the latter Committee by an Under Secretary of State, who said—
    "It is the only case that I am acquainted with in the Criminal Law where sureties are required for not committing a second offence in any charge relating to property—calling game property. I am not aware of any case in the whole range of English law where magistrates have the power, except under this Act, to impose hard labour with imprisonment in default of finding sureties."
    He (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was at a loss to know why the Government were proposing to modify these abominable Acts in one part of the country only; because he had shown, what everyone knew, that they acted as oppressively in England as they did in Scotland. He therefore submitted that there was no ground for confining the operation of the Bill to Scotland, and moved that—
    "It be an Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to extend the operation of the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, that if the House went into Committee on the Bill the Government would agree to report Progress on the 1st clause, in order to extend the operation of the measure to the whole of the United Kingdom.
    Motion agreed to.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to extend the operation of the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom.—(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)
    Bill considered in Committee.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  MARRIAGES CONFIRMATION (HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS) BILL— [Bill 149.]
  (Mr. Algernon Egerton, Mr. William Smithy Sir Massey Lopes, Mr. Staveley Hill.)
  MARRIAGES CONFIRMATION (HER MAJESTY'S SHIPS) BILL— [Bill 149.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. COURTNEYremarked that they were asked to take up a very serious subject of legislation; and though he did not propose to oppose this stage of the Bill, he certainly should oppose the Motion to go into Committee until they had some explanation from the Government as to what were their views of the state in which the law should be. No doubt, up to the present, it had been the general opinion that marriages contracted on board ship, in the presence of the commanding officer, and duly entered in the ship's log, were to all intents and purposes legal. They were now told that doubts were thrown upon those marriages, and that they were, probably, invalid. Of course, there would be no opposition whatever to making certain the validity of marriages which had already taken place. But the far more important question was, whether they should now give effect to the understanding which had so long existed, or should now, for the first time, prevent such marriages being contracted in future. It would not be wise for him to enter on so wide a question at that hour of the night in an empty House; but instead of making such marriages illegal, as he understood was the desire of Her Majesty's Government, they should surely remove all doubt as to the vaidity of such marriages in the past as well as in future, by making them all legal. Marriage was an accident which would happen in all parts of the world, and it was impossible always to have a clergyman at hand, or to observe all the ceremonial practised in England, or even those required by the Scotch law. Surely, at sea, the ceremonial described was sufficient, if the parties declared themselves to be man and wife in the

    1779
    presence of the captain; and if the fact were entered in the ship's log all the requirements of common sense were there complied with; and he therefore thought it was far better at once to make all these marriages valid.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped Her Majesty's Government would be very careful before they introduced any innovation of this kind. It often happened that passengers going out together took a fancy to one another. That could not be helped, and if they were not allowed to marry, as used to be the case, something worse might follow. If this principle were carried out, if people died they would not bury them, and if people wanted to be born they would not let them. This was one of the things they could not help; and any alteration would involve a great number of people in much difficulty. He knew, from a great number of cases, that it was a very common thing for people going out in ships to get married; and it had always been understood that these marriages were as legal as any before a Registrar in Lambeth or Finsbury. He hoped the Law Officers of the Crown would think over this matter again, and not incommode a number of plain people who did not see these matters in the same light as themselves.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONexplained that the Bill did not at all interfere with marriages solemnized before captains of other ships, but was merely intended to confirm certain marriages that had been solemnized by captains of Her Majesty's ships. The ground of the Bill, and the real reason for introducing it was, that certain widows could not receive property to which they were really entitled without the confirmation by this House of the marriages between them and their deceased husbands. By opposing the Motion to go into Committee, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) might or might not elicit the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to what course they would pursue under certain circumstances with regard to the alteration of the law. This Bill, however, made no alteration of the law, and was merely brought in to confirm certain marriages, and to prevent great injustice from being done.
    MR. MUNDELLAasked who withheld this property?
    MR. A. F. EGERTONreplied, that the facts were very simple. A marriage was performed by the captain of one of Her Majesty's ships in the Bay of Panama. The husband died at Callao, on the coast of South America, and his widow became entitled to some property. The Consul obtained jurisdiction, and was the person who would have to pay over this property. He entertained doubts as to the validity of the marriage, although it was certified, and, consequently, the case was referred home. The Law Officers of the Crown had the question submitted to them, and after consultation they came to the conclusion that these marriages were invalid. It was for this reason that it was desired to confirm these marriages. He believed up to the present but two had been solemnized.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

    PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 1) BILL AND PIER AND HARBOUR OBDERS CONFIRMATION (NO. 2) BILL.
    Ordered, That the Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill and the Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill be committed to the same Committee.
    Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to consolidate the two Bills into one Bill.—(Mr. John G. Talbot.)

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (POOR LAW) PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1867," relating to the Townships of Great Barlow and Little Barlow, the Townships of Cheadle Bulkeley and Cheadle Moseley, and the Town of Plymouth, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 155.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (AXMINSTER UNION, &C.) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SALT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Rural Sanitary District of the Axminster Union, the Boroughs of Liverpool and Oswestry, the Local Government District of Pontypridd, the Improvement Act District of Ramsgate, and the Local Government Districts of Wellington (Somerset) and Ystradyfodwg, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SALT and Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 154.]

    COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to amend "The Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865," ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON and Mr. GERARD NOEL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 156.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Dinevor, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Omnibus Regulation (41); Railways and Telegraphs in India * (63).
Third Reading—Rivers Conservancy * (67); Petty Customs (Scotland) Abolition Act Amendment * (33), and passed.

TREATY OF BERLIN—PERFORMANCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GEANVILLE: I rise to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of

  1675
  which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether he can state at what time he will lay Papers before the House, or make a statement to explain the progress which has been made in carrying out the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin? The day before yesterday, the 3rd of May, was the date on which, by the Treaty, Roumania, Bulgaria, and Eastern Roumelia were to be evacuated by the Russian troops, and, therefore, marks an important epoch, as this evacuation, possibly for sufficient cause, has not been accomplished. We do not know of any reforms in the Greek Provinces, or of the rectification of the Turco-Greek Frontier, or of the reforms promised in Armenia, or of the completion of the work of the various Frontier Commissioners. It is true that Papers have recently been laid on the Table of the House; but they only come down to February of this year, and these were distributed simultaneously with Nos. 53 and 54 of 1878, and there were at the same time distributed Cretan Papers up to February this year. It is not a satisfactory way of giving information to Parliament to allow these Papers to accumulate in the Foreign Office, and then discharge them in masses of 900 pages upon the House; more partilarly when, as in this case, they do not throw the slightest light on the subjects which have been exciting the attention of the public of Europe during the last three months. The noble Marquess and the Merchant Taylors will, of course, think that I am only actuated by such base motives as the noble Marquess does not think it unbecoming in a Minister of State to ascribe to all who, at the moment, differ from him in their political views; but I trust that your Lordships, and even the noble Marquess's Colleagues, will not consider it unreasonable for me to ask at what time we may expect to have some information on a subject about which we are all anxious.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I received this morning a Notice from the noble Earl that he proposed to ask me this Question—namely, when I would make a statement as to the negotiations in progress for carrying out the Provisions of the Treaty? It does not seem at all an unreasonable Question, and it appears to me that I may as
  1676
  well make a statement on the subject now. I am afraid I shall have to ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a few minutes. I have brought the Treaty with me, and I propose to point out with respect to each division of it what has been done and what is the present condition of affairs. The first part of the Treaty provides that Bulgaria shall be an autonomous Principality; shall have a Christian Government and National Militia; that the Prince shall be freely elected by the population; that his election shall be confirmed by the Porte with the assent of the Powers; and that there shall be an Assembly of Notables convoked at Tirnova before the election of the Prince to determine the Constitution of the Principality. With regard to that part of the Treaty, I have to say that all these things have been done. A Prince has been elected—I believe a very good choice—by the people of Bulgaria, and this choice has been freely assented to by all the Powers; and the Constitution of the Principality has been voted by the Chamber. The next part of the Treaty determines the Boundaries of Bulgaria. This is rather a larger business. A Commission has been appointed under the Treaty, which devoted itself for the remaining part of the working season of last year, and has now re-commenced its labours for determining the Boundaries of the Principality. There was some delay and difficulty caused last year owing to the circumstance that, according to ordinary International practice, every decision had to be taken by the unanimity of the Commissioners. I am happy to say that during the present year we have avoided the possibility of any such difficulty, for all the Powers have agreed that all points of controversy that may arise shall be determined by the majority. There has been considerable discussion on a Proviso at the end of the 2nd Article of the Treaty, which says that the Delimitation Commission shall take into consideration the necessity for the Sultan to be able to defend the Balkan Frontiers of Eastern Roumelia. I think it was poor Mehemet Ali who proposed that that should be done—or, at least, he desired it should be done—by drawing a line considerably in advance of the Balkans on the Northern side; but to this mode of solving the difficulty the Powers were generally opposed; and now it

  1677
  has been decided that, as a rule, the watershed shall be taken, but that in all places where that does not seem sufficient to furnish Turkey with the ground necessary for the raising of works of defence, the watershed shall be overstepped and ground taken on the other side. In what cases this shall be done is to be determined by the majority of the Commission. Then, as in the case of all the Principalities, provision has been made in the Treaty for the maintenance of religious liberty in Bulgaria; and that has been scrupulously carried out. It is further provided that the provisional régime is not to last beyond the installation of a Prince, and not to last beyond nine months from the exchange of the ratification of the Treaty. In this respect the Treaty has been faithfully observed. The tribute which that Principality is to pay to the Porte is a matter which, by the Treaty, is to be determined at the close of the first year after the reorganization of the Principality; the time has not yet arrived when that can be carried into effect. There is another provision with regard to Bulgaria which I ought not to pass over—namely, that which provides for the razing of the fortifications by the local Government within one year of the ratification of the Treaty; but though a large portion of the year has elapsed, I believe that the provision has not been carried into effect. I have no precise knowledge on the point, but I do not think that much progress has been made in razing the fortifications, and it is a matter which may have to engage the attention of the Powers; but obviously, until the year has elapsed, it is not a point that can be diplomatically raised.
  The next part of the Treaty is that which deals with the much-discussed question of Eastern Roumelia. A Commission has been appointed to carry out its delimitation. The other Articles with respect to that Province provide that a Governor General shall be named by the Porte with the assent of all the Powers, and that he shall hold office for five years. A Governor General has been named by the Porte, and his nomination has been assented to by the Powers. Aleko Pasha—not from any suggestion by us—was freely selected by the Porte as being a Christian; and as being also, from his race and previous associations, likely to be satisfactory to
  1678
  the people whom he was to govern. I have every reason to believe that the nomination will be a satisfactory one to the people of Eastern Roumelia, and the Porte may be trusted to have selected a man who will support its own interests in that Province. Immediately after the ratification of the Treaty a European Commission was formed to elaborate, in accord with the Ottoman Porte, the organization of Eastern Roumelia. That Commission met. The Representatives of England were two Members of Parliament, one a Member of the other House, Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, and the other a Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Donoughmore; and, my Lords, I cannot pass over their names without paying a tribute to the energy and ability with which they have accomplished a most difficult task. They have conducted their labours to a successful issue, though all the decisions had to be taken under what seemed at first sight an almost impossible condition; but still the matter has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and the Statute of the Commission now awaits the sanction of the Sultan. That sanction is a formal matter which will be given under the Treaty by an Imperial Firman. I am bound to say that in one respect the Treaty was too sanguine. It laid down that the Commission should finish its work in three months; but there is one thing which even Treaties cannot do, and that is to make deliberative bodies move faster than they can: and, instead of three, the work lasted nine months. However, that is now finished. Article 15 provides that there shall be a native gendarmerie and local militia maintained in Eastern Roumelia; that the officers shall be nominated by the Sultan; and that the religion of the inhabitants shall be respected. These are matters which are provided for in the Statute of the European Commission to which I have already referred. The European Commission, I should say in passing, is also charged by the 19th Article to administer, in concert with the Sublime Porte, the finances of the Province until the completion of the new organization. This task the Commission accordingly undertook, and Lord Donoughmore was one of the sub-Committee to whom the finances of the Province were intrusted. It is a provisional matter, and it has now passed by.

  1679
  Speaking literally and technically, the Treaty has been fulfilled; but, undoubtedly, there were delays against which the Commissioners had repeatedly to protest—delays arising probably from the want of that accuracy in accounts to which European statesmen are accustomed. Then comes the question of the Russian occupation, to which the noble Earl refers, and which is provided for by Article 22. Now, I confess that I do not read that Article in the same manner as the noble Earl. I understood him to say that under that Article the Russians were bound to have withdrawn all their troops out of the Principality and the Province by the 3rd of May. What the Article does say is this—The Corps of Occupation shall be composed of six divisions of Infantry, two of Cavalry, and shall not exceed 50,000 men; and the period of occupation is fixed at nine months from the date of the exchange of the rectification of the Treaty. If evacuation had commenced before the end of the nine months, these Infantry and Cavalry divisions must have been materially diminished, and it is obvious that in that case the provisions of the Treaty would not have been complied with. What the Treaty contemplates is that up to the end of the nine months the Army of Occupation should remain undiminished. Up to the close of the nine months the occupation is to remain in all its entirety; from that date the evacuation is to commence, and is to be carried on, of course, with all reasonable despatch. The occupation authorized by the Treaty is to cease on the 3rd of May, and by the 3rd of August there are to be no troops of the Army of Occupation left on the South or West of the Pruth. That is what I understand to be the provision of the Treaty. Up to this time I have no occasion to believe that the Treaty will not be scrupulously observed in that reading of it, which I believe to be the right one. It is impossible, without a much larger staff of Consuls than we possess, to give accurate information as to the precise movements or numbers of the occupying force; but I have known for some time past of the movements in Bulgaria, and the evacuation has not only commenced, but it is proceeding. The 23rd Article contains an engagement for providing the Island of Crete with an organic Constitution, taking that of 1868 as a basis of the proposed modi-
  1680
  fications. Well, my Lords, that has been done. The Cretan Constitution has been revised in a highly liberal sense. Certainly I think that at the time when this Constitution was passed the inhabitants of the Island not only had reason to be, but were, satisfied with what had been done. I think, on the whole, that under the guidance of the Turkish official whose duty it is to see the Constitution carried out, although I have heard that some disturbances have since broken out in the mountains, a period of tranquillity in the Island has commenced. Then the Article goes on to say that analogous Constitutions, adapted to local requirements, may be introduced into other parts of European Turkey, for which no provision has been made, and the Sublime Porte is to depute separate Commissions for this purpose. But the revision of the Cretan Constitution only received its final sanction in January, and, therefore, the Porte has not been able to arrange for analogous Constitutions; and, consequently, I cannot say that, though these special Commissions have not been set on foot, there has been any breach of the Treaty in this respect. What I believe that the Turkish Government intends is, to use the Constitution elaborated for Eastern Roumelia by the European Commission, as in a great degree a model for these new Constitutions proposed to be provided for the other European Provinces; and I think, if sufficient elasticity be given and no attempt at too hard an identity for all the Provinces of the Empire be insisted upon, this idea is a good one, and I trust the Porte will be enabled to carry it out. This intention naturally explains why no further steps have been carried out; because the Report of the International Commission has only been placed in the Sultan's hands within a few weeks. Article 24 says that in case the Sublime Porte and Greece shall not succeed in coming to an understanding on the rectification of the Frontier indicated in the 13th Protocol of the Congress of Berlin, then the six Great Powers reserve to themselves the liberty of offering their mediation to the two parties for the purpose of facilitating negotiations. The Article is in progress of execution. The French Government has made a proposal to the Powers on this subject of mediation, and I believe that all the Powers have accepted that proposal.

  1681
  Then the Treaty provides that the Provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina are to be occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary; and I need hardly say that the provision has been fulfilled. With regard to Montenegro, there was for a considerable period some doubt whether that part of the Treaty would be carried into effect. It is very easy for the Porte to say it has ceded certain districts to another Power; but if the inhabitants of those districts are martial and the country is mountainous, and, as far as military operations are concerned, is of an impracticable character, it does not depend entirely on the will of the Porte whether that part of the Treaty is to be carried out. Considering the terrible examples which had been given of what the population were capable, there was at one time sufficient cause for apprehension in the minds of many persons. Your Lordships are, however, aware that Montenegro is now in possession of all the territory that she is entitled to by the Treaty of Berlin. With regard to Servia and Roumania, I need say but little, because no great points of difficulty have arisen. The delimitation required a survey, and that necessarily occupied time. With respect to Roumania, the question as to the fortress of Arab-Tabia remains unsettled. I see no grounds for believing that there will be any great difficulty in the delimitation of Servia. There is every reason to anticipate the settlement in respect of these two Principalities of a question of some interest, though not concerned with the Eastern Question properly so called. The Congress of Berlin determined that religious liberty, to its fullest extent, should be granted by ail the Principalities on which it could impose that condition before their independence should be fully recognized. In Servia, I believe, satisfactory arrangements have been made; and, though a decision has not been absolutely arrived at, the matter had gone far enough to justify the four Western Powers in recognizing the independence of the Principality itself. In Roumania the case is different. The three conterminous Powers, probably considering their interests more important than merely speculative difficulties, immediately recognized the independence of Roumania; but the four Western Powers—England, France, Germany, and Italy—have not yet done so. We have,
  1682
  however, every reason to hope that before long assurances will be given to us that may justify our believing that the Treaty in this respect will be fully and faithfully carried out; and it will be with great satisfaction that we shall welcome Roumania among independent States. With respect to the cessions in Asia, I can say that the part of the line which was to be drawn by agreement between Russia and Turkey has been drawn already, by an agreement come to by Count Schouvaloff and myself at the Congress. It was no part of the Treaty, but it has been printed with it. It was arranged that an English Commissioner should take part in the delimitation of the Southern part of the Boundary. Delimitation has now been commenced, and will, I have no doubt, be carried on with the greatest possible speed. By Article 59, the Czar of Russia declared that henceforth Batoum was to be a free and essentially commercial port. It has certainly been made a free port, but to be an essentially commercial port it must have commerce; and, so far as I know, that result has not yet been obtained. By the 61st Article, the Sublime Porto enters into an engagement with respect to the reforms in these Provinces inhabited by the Armenians.
  EARL GRANVILLE: What reforms?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You must construe it according to the usual meaning of the word. A Commission has been sent into Asia. No doubt, the noble Earl will admit that before reforms are introduced it is better to ascertain what the local needs are, and the local means; and to ascertain these the Porte has issued a Commission, which is now on the spot, to inquire into the question. But until the finance of the Porte is brought to a more satisfactory state, we cannot expect any bonâ fide reform. We know well in this country that there is nothing that costs money like administrative reform; and if there is to be reform in Turkey, I am afraid that its Rulers will not escape the conditions which attach to it in a civilized nation like our own. Certainly, an essential preliminary to reforms is the establishment of such gendarmerie as will give security for life and property; and in order to secure efficiency, so that it will not use its power to plunder or

  1683
  murder those whom it ought to protect, you must pay it well, and in order to pay it well, you must have money to pay it with. The 72nd Article simply consecrates those principles of religious liberty already imported into the Turkish Code; and, as far as our information goes, we have not heard of any Turkish authority who has shown the slightest indication of an intention to disregard the provisions of the Treaty in that respect. Now, my Lords, I have gone through the Treaty of Berlin, section by section, and, so far as I can see, the stipulations with have been entered into between Turkey and the Powers have been, up to this time, scrupulously performed.

SUNDAY (OPENING OF MUSEUMS, &C.)

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD THURLOWrose to call the attention of the House and the Government to a Petition again addressed by working men to Parliament this Session, praying
  "For the opening of the British Museum, the South Kensington and Bethnal Green Museums, and the National Gallery on Sunday afternoons."
  He must crave their Lordships' indulgence for a few moments while he explained the scope of his present Motion, and the grounds on which it rested. In the first place, he desired to state that the Petition praying for the opening on Sunday afternoons, free to the public, of the Bethnal Green, the British, and South Kensington Museums, and the National Gallery, emanated from one only of several Societies now existing in London for promoting this object. There was, for example, the well-known Sunday Society, established in 1875, which had been presided over last year by a noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery), and which was to be presided over this year by a most distinguished commoner, Sir Henry Thompson. He noticed this Society first in order to point to its rapid progress in proof of the advance this cause had made of recent years. On the roll of its Vice-Presidents they would find the names of many Members of both Houses of Parliament; of some of the most eminent surgeons and physicians of the day, who were certainly well qualified to form their own opinion on the matter—at any rate, from one point of view—of eminent writers of science and morality, like
  1684
  Huxley, Lecky, and Tyndall; of eminent divines of rival Creeds, like Monsignor Capel and the Dean of Westminster; the newly-elected President of the Royal Academy, bankers, large employers of labour—in fact, representative men of all classes and professions; forming, altogether, an array of learning and philanthropy which it was impossible to gainsay. Well, this, the Sunday Society, was an offshoot of an older Society that first acquired prominence in 1829 in the action taken by Mr. William Lovett, who drew up a Petition that was signed by several thousands and presented to Parliament by Mr. Joseph Hume. This was the Society that presented the present Petition, and it was the one that presented the Petition to which he ventured to call their Lordships' attention last year, and to which the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack (Earl Cairns) objected, being signed by only one name, the President of the Society. It was, therefore, not impossible that the noble and learned Earl might object to the present Petition as only signed by two names, the Chairman and the Secretary of the Society. But he (Lord Thurlow) desired to explain that the preparation and presentation of these Petitions of late years had only been for the purpose of formally protesting in each Session of Parliament against the inaction of the authorities. Larger Petitions, with many thousands of signatures, had been presented in former years, and had been equally disregarded—so far, at least, as any action in London was concerned, although it might be that to them had been due the action taken by the former Governments in Dublin, Hampton Court, and Kew. Some years ago, for instance, a Petition was presented signed by 200 clergymen, mostly of the Church of England, praying for Sunday opening of National Libraries and Museums, and he would tell their Lordships some of the names he found attached to that Petition, because he thought they were the names of people who knew what they were about—The Rev. Septimus Hansard, rector of Bethnal Green; the Rev. William Rogers, rector of Bishopsgate; the vicars of St. Mary's, Soho; of St. Peter's, Bayswater; of St. George's, Kensington; the incumbent of St. John's, Holborn; then they found the great name of Charles Kingsley; and the rectors of St. Luke's, of Chelsea, and many

  1685
  more London rectors, vicars, incumbents, and curates, too numerous to mention. Then he had a Petition of the journeymen tailors of London, signed almost to a man; and a Memorial to Her Majesty the Queen by 943 gentlemen of literature, science, and art, for the same object. Well, let them see who signed this Memorial in 1860—Sir James Herschell, Sir John Burgoyne, Sir Edwin Landseer, Gibson the sculptor, Cooper the artist, Mulready, John Sheepshanks, Foley the sculptor, Mr. Henry Cole, Norman Macleod; Tom Taylor, secretary, and John Simon, medical officer of the General Board of Health, Thomas Graham, Master of the Mint, and names, familiar as household words, like Richard Owen, Charles Dickens, Lyon Playfair, Wheatstone, Vaughan, Glaisher, Lyall, and hundreds of the wisest and most distinguished men of the day. Then he could give a list of 60 Metropolitan Trade Societies who memorialized Her Majesty's Government in 1860—carpenters, printers, carvers and gilders, bootmakers, basketmakers, goldsmiths, plumbers, masons, smiths, weavers, dyers, and so on. In 1869 over 68,000 persons petitioned Parliament on this subject, and most of them had heard of the 25,000 artizans who walked in orderly procession on Sunday, the 7th of May, 1876, and knocked at the doors of the British Museum and National Gallery. So that he thought he might with confidence say that if the noble and learned Earl would only state how many Petitions he required, and how many signatures attached to each, to convince him that this was a question on which the working classes felt deeply and were in earnest, it would be an easy matter to satisfy him. There were, however, two other points in the reply of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack to his Question of last year to which he desired to refer. The noble and learned Earl said he thought that the Petition of 1856 had only about 5,000 signatures. Now, his information was that it had about 24,000 signatures; and although it was quite true, as the noble and learned Earl very properly pointed out, that a counter-Petition more numerously signed was presented at the same time, still this was only half the case, for the noble and learned Earl did not tell their Lordships, what it was important to know, and
  1686
  what was pointed out at the time in the other House of Parliament by a noble Earl now on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Derby), that—
  "It must be borne in mind that whereas the Petition for the opening was only signed by inhabitants of London, the counter-Petition was the result of a thoroughly well-organized agitation of the Sabbatarian party over the whole area of England;"
  And this he thought was an important factor in the consideration of the relative value of these two Petitions. In the second place, the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack stated that, considering the allegation that this was a working man's question, it was remarkable that some of the leading opposition in the other House of Parliament to Sunday opening emanated from Members representing what might be called working-class constituencies, and he specially mentioned Leicester, Southwark, and Newcastle-on-Tyne; but here, again, he was bound to say that his information did not quite tally with that of the noble and learned Earl, for he had examined the Division List of 1874, and there he found voting for the measure the name of Mr. P. A. Taylor, the hon. Member for Leicester; and also the names of the Members for the following working-class constituencies:—Macclesfield, Middlesborough, Scarborough, Huddersfield, Bury, Blackburn, Barnstaple, Rochester, Stafford, Morpeth, Rochdale, Carlisle, Sheffield, Derby, York, Glasgow, Liverpool, Birmingham, Southwark, Hackney, Chelsea, and many more seats of labour and centres of industry of the very greatest importance, and where they would naturally expect to find the constituents taking a lively interest in the question. And a glance at the Division List of 1874 revealed another name, which he would mention because he thought it would carry weight with their Lordships. He referred to the name of the late Sir William Stirling Maxwell. Now, he was the Conservative Member for the important County of Perth, a man of large possessions and of very great intelligence, and, moreover, he believed, a Trustee of the British Museum. When they found a man like that voting for Sunday opening, and considered that Scotchmen were not prone to Sunday opening, he thought they

  1687
  could only conclude that he did so as the result of strong personal conviction of the necessity of the measure. But he did not seek to rest this thing mainly on the foundation of Petitions or of Division Lists. He sought to rest it on the unanimous verdict of all thinking men who approached the question with impartiality. He (Lord Thurlow) looked at the growing evil of intemperance. He looked at the happiness and contentment of the people. He looked at the art education of the masses. He asked himself what could a working man do with his time on an inclement Sunday afternoon in London? On all sides of him, and at nearly all the corners of nearly all the streets, certain creature comforts were held out to him:—Warmth, shelter, society, and such selfish and transient enjoyment as could be derived from drink; and he desired to draw the picture of a working man in such a place—he meant, of course, a public-house—in the evening, before returning to Ms family, gloomily contemplating the bottom of his empty glass and his empty breeches pockets, and to contrast that with the picture of another working man who had spent his Sunday afternoon in wandering through the well-warmed galleries of the British Museum or South Kensington, and in the contemplation of the grandest works of God and man. In the former—especially in its geological and natural history sections—he would find the whole story of the Creation and the Old Testament profusely illustrated; in the latter, he would derive the gratification of being brought face to face with the most beautiful productions of every age and race, in every variety of form, colour, and handicraftship. He would not dwell on the home-going of the first—it was too easily imagined, and might be found in the police reports of the newspapers on any Monday morning, with all its hideous accompaniments of wife-kicking and other brutalities. Let them rather go home with the second, his mind relaxed by new ideas and pleasant images, his shillings and sixpences still in his pockets; and, he asked, who would dare to prefer the home-going of the first, or venture to contemplate without anxiety the influence on society of hundreds of thousands of such home-goings on every inclement Sunday evening in London
  1688
  as at present, and who would then refuse to lend a helping hand to the cause of Sunday reform? But he thought he heard some one say—"Beware of the thin end of the wedge—if you open museums and libraries and national galleries on Sunday, you will inevitably drift into music-halls, theatres, and the like." He asked why? Was there any likeness between national institutions, open free, and places of private enterprize, opened by greedy individuals for the sole purpose of making money? The one saved the workman pounds, shillings, and pence; the other took them—aye, to the uttermost farthing if it could. Besides, the thin end of the wedge was a much-abused argument, and opposed to all progress, and, moreover, could not be held to apply; for if this wedge had a thin edge, it was introduced by former Governments years ago in Dublin, Hampton Court, and Kew, and he asked boldly with what results? This was no new or revolutionary idea that he urged. He only urged the application to London of an old and eminently Conservative idea, which had been found to succeed beyond anticipation, and which had been solicited by the working classes of London themselves for years with a patience, a forbearance, a regard for Constitutional usage, and an absence of anything like passionate agitation that did them the very highest credit, and entitled them and their cause to every consideration and respect. He desired to correct a statement he made last year in this House, when he said that he thought a certain amount of opposition to Sunday opening might be looked for from the custodians and guardians of these repositories of art and learning, whose Sunday afternoon hours of leisure would be thereby curtailed. He now knew that that remark was as unjust as it was untrue, for he had since received numerous spontaneous communications from these custodians, from the highest to the lowest, all expressing their willingness to volunteer for Sunday labour, and all expressing their conviction of the benefits that would accrue, and he thought their Lordships would agree that this feeling did them very great honour. Experience taught that Sunday afternoon was the only time that suited these classes for visiting those places. They had the experience of the

  1689
  noble Duke (the Duke of Westminster), who opened Grosvenor House, that whereas the average on week days was only 143, on Sundays it rose to 510. They had the experience of Birmingham, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Maidstone, Wigan, &c. They had the experience of Dublin in Ireland, of Sydney in Australia, of Chicago. Cincinnati, and St. Louis in America. In 1868 the descendants of the Puritans opened the Boston town libraries on Sunday, and the principal librarian now said that he would rather close them on any other two days in the week than on Sundays, on which days he had more than three times the number of readers than on any other day. The mercantile library of Philadelphia had also been opened some years on Sundays, and now had over 700 readers, mostly young men, on Sundays. The same had been done at New York, and with the same result. Sabbatarians might shake their heads and point to the librarians prevented from going to church. He preferred to point to the Report of their Lordships' recent Select Committee on Intemperance. There he found it stated that there were in this country 340,000 barmen and barmaids, the large majority of whom worked on Sundays, and numbers of whom were undoubtedly thereby prevented from going to church. And he would ask leave to quote Sir Joseph Paxton on this point, as he knew something of the tastes and wishes of the working classes. He said—
  "There would be less labour done on Sundays if museums were opened, as the number employed in public-houses would be greatly diminished."
  He agreed with Sir Joseph Paxton, and he agreed with the noble Earl on the Cross-Benches, to whom he had already referred (the Earl of Derby), when he said, some years ago, in "another place"—
  "But one class would have grounds for thanking the Sabbatarians for their efforts in this direction—they would have gladdened the hearts and filled the pockets of every brewer, distiller, and publican in the United Kingdom."
  He thought their Lordships would admit that language was not too strong, when he told them that, a few years ago, the public-houses in Manchester were watched on a Sunday, and were found to have been visited on that day by over
  1690
  120,000 men, by over 71,000 women, and by over 23,000 children. Those figures were more eloquent than any words of his, and sufficiently told their own tale. Then they came to the desirability of removing such class restrictions as gave ground for the belief that the poorer classes of the community were, by the closing of museums on Sunday, treated with an asceticism not practised by the wealthy. Those words occurred in the Petition; and that point was well explained by Mr. Jesse Collings in the Birmingham Town Council, when the opening of the town libraries and museums there on Sunday was under discussion in 1871. He said—
  "If you are rich enough to become sole proprietor of books, of gardens, and pictures; nay, if you are rich enough to hold a share in a company that has such possessions, the law will not be against you, public opinion will be with you, and a religious scandal will not be created. If you can buy a share in the Crystal Palace, or if you can subscribe a guinea to the Botanical Gardens, you can enjoy art and nature righteously; but if you are so poor that you can possess books, and pictures, and gardens in the only way in which the poor can possess them—that is, in their corporate capacity, then such enjoyments become oppressive to the consciousness of certain other men, many of whom, by their own confession, derive the utmost delight from doing in their own homes that which they so strongly object to being done in the public libraries and art galleries of the town."
  But he would not dwell any longer on that point, which was a self-evident one. He had already taken up too large a share of their Lordships' time, and he must refer, however briefly, to the general consensus of opinion on that subject of the leading magistrates and police authorities of London. Mr. Norton, who long-presided over the Lambeth Police Court, said—
  "I am one of those who would see the Crystal Palace freely thrown open to the people on Sundays; also the Museums and the Zoological Gardens."
  Again, Mr. Hardwick, of Marlborough Street Police Court, said—
  "I would let all places of innocent recreation be opened on Sundays. I think the effect would be to diminish drunkenness. If you provide good objects, less pernicious stimulants will be required."
  Then they had Mr. Long, of Marylebone Police Court, who said—
  "The man who seeks recreation on Sunday afternoon may have been at church in the morning, or may go to church in the evening, and in

  1691
  enjoying the beauties of nature and art in the afternoon I think he is acting very wisely and properly. The higher classes have improved as the love of literature, of science, of nature, and of art have increased among them. What is low and disgraceful is now spurned; and the same will operate in all other grades of society. Encourage the people to take innocent recreation on Sunday, and as you give them bettor tastes they will relinquish low sensualities."
  And Mr. Combe, of Southwark Police Court, said—
  "I think that every facility should be thrown in the way of the people for recreation on Sunday, and that they have a right to expect it."
  Again, Mr. Wakley, Coroner for Middlesex, no bad judge, said—
  "I am strongly in favour of places of innocent recreation being thrown open on Sundays. My conviction is that it would greatly diminish drunkenness."
  And, lastly, he would quote the late Sir Richard Mayne—
  "No disorder arises from persons going forth to places of innocent recreation, nor in the town afterwards. I should fear no disorder if the Crystal Palace or the Museums were opened. I have seen a great improvement in the people, and consider part of it, at least, owing to the greater opportunities which have been given for their amusement and the employment of their time on Sundays in other places than public-houses. Richmond Park, Hampton Court, Kew, and Bushy Park, attract large numbers on the summer Sundays; and I do not think I have been obliged to increase the number of police in those places, although the attendance has so largely increased."
  Well, Sir Richard Mayne did not exactly tell them what this increase amounted to; but some idea might be formed of the extent to which the working classes availed themselves of whatever was thrown open to them, and of whatever entertainment was provided for them, on Sunday, from the following statement by Sir Benjamin Hall, the late Lord Llanover:—
  "That the Sunday visitors to Kensington Gardens had, by the band playing there, been increased from 7,000 to 80,000 in one day; and in the Regent's and Victoria Parks, 190,000 had been attracted by the bands on one afternoon; and that, so far from tumult or disorder arising, he had ascertained from the magistrates of the neighbouring Police Courts that the Monday morning cases had decreased."
  Finally, he would read a letter from Birmingham. It was there that Sunday opening had received its fairest trial in this country, and it was, therefore, only natural to look there for the result.
  1692
  Accordingly, he placed himself in communication with the Chief Superintendent of Police there, Major Bond, an officer of great energy and experience, and he asked that gentleman to give him the results of the experience of his department on this question. This he kindly did. The name of Major Bond must be favourably known to many of their Lordships on account of the impartiality that characterized his evidence before their Lordships' recent Select Committee on Intemperance. He wrote him on April 7 last as follows:—
  "We have in Birmingham the following places open on Sundays:—The Art Gallery of the Midland Institute, the Free Libraries, and the Astor Park Museum. These places have now been open since 1872, and with the greatest success. In my opinion, no such satisfactory results could have been achieved amongst the poorer classes of this town in weaning them from the riot of the public-houses, the only place of resort for them on a Sunday, as has been the case since the throwing open of these places to the public. They are, visited by thousands, and more orderly, quiet, and decently-dressed crowds are not to be seen anywhere. It is of the rarest occurrence that the intervention of the police is necessary. I trust your Lordship will be able to get the same boon for the working classes of London as is now enjoyed by the people of Birmingham."
  He would now conclude this appeal to Majesty's Government and to their Lordships' House to take this opportunity to confer an incalculable benefit upon society and a priceless boon upon the artizans of London—a boon that, in his opinion, would come to them with peculiar propriety at a moment like the present of great privation and distress. He only asked for a trial in London of what was now being done elsewhere, and that on any scale Her Majesty's Government might think proper. He did not even ask for the whole of the four prominent institutions mentioned in the Petition. In the case of the British Museum, special departments like the prints, coins, gems, and large sections of the library, might remain closed. He could not admit that there existed any insuperable mechanical difficulties. A noble Earl whom he had the honour to sit near in that House, and whose whole life had been spent in successful endeavours to improve the condition of the working classes (the Earl of Shaftesbury), told them the other night, at the close of his eloquent appeal for the extension of the British Factory Acts to

  1693
  the oppressed operatives of British India, "Where there is a will, depend upon it you will find there is also a way." With these words from the experienced lips of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he would now leave this matter in their Lordships' hands, confident that, at whatever result their Lordships might arrive, they would not refuse to give this subject their serious and impartial consideration. He therefore begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Moved to resolve, That this House haying observed the excellent results that have followed upon the opening of museums, &c. on Sunday afternoons in Dublin, Birmingham, Manchester, Middlesborough, Hampton Court, Kew, &c., is of opinion that it is highly desirable that the prayer of the petition of the Council of the National Sunday League, presented to this House on the 27th of March last, praying "for the opening of the British Museum, the South Kensington and Bethnal Green Museums, and the National Gallery to the people on Sunday afternoons," should be granted, oven if only in part and as a tentative measure, in order to provide the working classes of London with an alternative to the public-house on the many inclement Sunday afternoons when places of out-of-doors recreation, such as the public parks, are of no avail for the purposes of health and relaxation.—(The Lord Thurlow.)
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURT, as one of the Governors of the National Gallery in Dublin, desired to say that during the last 13 or 14 years that institution had been regularly opened to the public every Sunday afternoon, from 2 o'clock until dusk, and that with the happiest results. The Gallery was invariably well attended by the working classes, and during all that time there had not been a single complaint made against any visitor. He desired to mention these facts in corroboration of the views expressed by the noble Lord, and trusted that the Government would see their way to acting on the prayer of the Petition.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEENobserved, that as publicans, like other people, could not be expected to be in favour of any measure which interfered with their own interests, they would not be in favour of the opening of museums on Sunday if such a measure wore, in their opinion, likely to lessen the amount of their receipts on that day. The strongest argument in favour of it would be to show that the libraries
  1694
  would be largely taken advantage of if it were brought into operation. Unfortunately, that was the point upon which the testimony was weakest—and, indeed, the only evidence on that branch of the subject was derived from America. What he desired to see was an extension of the Saturday half-holiday, and greater facilities given to the working classes to visit the museums on Saturday by the keeping open of those institutions till a later hour. With respect to the religious aspect of the question, it could not be expected that those who regarded Sunday as a day of rest of Divine origin could agree to the secularization of that day, the effect of which would, he thought, be to reduce it to what might be termed a Parisian Sunday.
  THE EARL OF KINTOREsaid, he was unwilling to introduce a theological subject to their Lord ships' Notice; but, while he gave every credit to the noble Lord and those who were in favour of his Motion for excellent motives, he could not think that their object would be obtained by the means they had suggested. He wished to see every possible facility given to the working classes to visit the museums on every day except the Lord's Day; but to the throwing open of those institutions on the Lord's Day he was altogether opposed.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that those who shared the views of the noble Earl who had just sat down were, of course, bound to vote against the Motion; but he (the Marquess of Ripon) was not one of those who thought that the injunctions of the Mosaic law with respect to the Jewish Sabbath applied to the Christian Sunday. To use the beautiful words of the author of "The Christian Year," it was, "An Easter Day in every week." Sunday was a holy day, and no one would more regret than he should any step which might be taken to lower it to the level of an ordinary holiday. If he had to choose between the English Sunday in its sternest form and the Sunday which was to be witnessed in some parts of the Continent—a Sunday devoted to labour on the one hand and horse-racing on the other—ho should certainly choose the English Sunday; but, happily, the choice, as it appeared to him, did not lie between those alternatives. No doubt,

  1695
  they were often told that the proposal of his noble Friend was only "the thin end of the wedge." But that argument had been used against every improvement and reform in this country, though happily without success—to which circumstance it was owing that we had been able to proceed by reasonable steps instead of by violent changes. He quite admitted that, in providing the means for what appeared to him to be the reasonable recreation of the people on Sundays, care should be taken not to open to cupidity or self-interest a door by which Sunday work might be introduced. He should strongly object to Sunday labour—first, on religious grounds, and, secondly, because he believed a weekly day of rest to be essential to the physical well-being of the people. But he did not see that they need entertain any fear that, by rendering the Sunday of the working man more agreeable to him than it was at the present moment, they would be taking any step in the direction of Sunday labour. On the contrary, he believed that a measure of the kind now proposed would make it more sure that the working classes would resist any attempt to introduce Sunday labour. One consideration which had weighed a good deal with him against the proposal was the importance of not shocking the strong conscientious convictions entertained by many persons on the subject. A good many years ago, when in the other House of Parliament, he voted in favour of a Motion similar to the one now before their Lordships. Since then he had had to consider the question, for when he held the Office of Lord President, a deputation waited upon him in connection with the subject. He did not at that time feel prepared to suggest any alteration in the existing practice; but he hesitated mainly from the fear lest the proposed change should greatly shock the strong conscientious convictions which were entertained by persons whose feelings were entitled to the fullest consideration and respect. Still, considering that no one was to be compelled to go to places of recreation on Sunday who did not wish it, it would, he thought, be admitted that those religious convictions on the part of certain people ought not to be permitted to place a permanent obstacle in the way of the change now proposed. There were, it should be
  1696
  remembered, strong feelings on the other side, not merely on the part of individuals, but—what was more important—on the part of large masses of the working men; and, it seemed to him, the time had come when some further step towards meeting the views of that section of the population might be taken. Almost the only place of resort at present open to many of the working classes on Sundays was the pot-house. Now, it was surely much more consistent with the due observance of the Sunday that a man should spend an afternoon with his family in a museum or picture gallery, than that he should spend it alone in a pot-house, amid all the temptations which there beset him. Their Lordships, in justice, could hardly expect poor families to spend, say, a wet Sunday afternoon in the single room in which they were often lodged. Some change upon their only day of rest ought to be afforded them, and the question was, what should be the nature of that change? Was it to be the bar of the public-house or public institutions of the kind which the noble Lord desired to open? There was yet another argument which weighed very strongly with him in favour of the proposal. There were in this country, and he feared in all countries, a large number of persons who were practically indifferent to religious considerations, and also a small but active and energetic body who were distinctly hostile to the Christian religion. Now, to reject the Motion of his noble Friend would be to enable these latter people to go to the indifferent working man and to say—"Look what this gloomy and fierce and fanatical religion does for you; the rich can enjoy themselves whenever they please; the poor man has only Sunday at his disposal, and he is precluded from enjoying himself on that day in obedience, as they say, to the dictates of Christianity." That was a gross libel upon the spirit of the Christian religion; but, in holding such language, its enemies wielded a powerful and dangerous weapon, and it was to deprive them of that weapon that he was about to vote for the Motion.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, unquestionably the Resolution moved by the noble Lord (Lord Thurlow) needs greater consideration than would appear on the surface. There is no doubt it is desirable that

  1697
  the working classes of this country should be more familiar with galleries of art and museums of science than they probably arc. But that is a wish which, I think, ought not to be limited to the working classes. There are other classes in the country who would be benefited by a nearer acquaintance than they appear to me to possess with galleries of art and museums of science; and the tendency of our legislation of late years has happily been to bring the population of this country generally, irrespective of class, under the civilizing influence of those institutions—to bring art and science into nearer relation with the general life of the people. Within these few years public holidays have been established by statute. They have been secured to the people by the action of Parliament, and are not dependent upon the will of the Church; and there has been, besides, that great revolution in manners known as the half-Saturday movement—a revolution not legislative, but not less powerful, because it is the result of general conviction—whereby you secure 52 half-holidays in the year. Therefore, since the question now before your Lordships was first started, great changes, all favourable to the frequent visiting by the people of tills country of galleries of art and museums of science, have occurred. The proposal of the noble Lord is in favour of a very considerable advance being made from the stage at which we have arrived, and it is impossible to consider that proposal without some reference to the religious feelings of the country. Now, my Lords, I would not take an exaggerated view of the circumstances connected with this proposition in that respect. I am perfectly free to admit that there is a difference between the Christian Sunday and the Jewish Sabbath, and I cannot agree with those who would extend to the observance of the Christian Sunday the rules and regulations of the Jewish Sabbath. If there be any who desire to do it, they would utterly fail to accomplish that purpose. But of all Divine institutions, I maintain the most divine is that which secures a day of rest for man. If there is a consideration connected with this subject which I think ought not to be absent from your Lordships' mind on this occasion, it is this—would it have been possible to have secured a day of
  1698
  rest for man unless it had been connected with the religious sentiment? To my mind, it would have been utterly impossible; and it is the religious principle which, to a certain extent, is admitted by all—at least, by all classes that have influence and numbers in this country; it is that principle we must take care should not be discarded if we wish to maintain that day of rest which I hold to be the most valuable blessing ever conceded to man. It is the cornerstone of all civilization; and it would be very difficult to estimate what might be the deleterious effects, oven upon the health of the people, if there were no cessation from that constant toil and brain-work which must ever characterize a country like this, so advanced in its pursuits and civilization. Under these circumstances, I have ever hesitated to support propositions which have tended to diminish the observance of the Christian Sunday. Another point which ought to influence our decision is this—In all questions into which the religious sentiment enters, it is highly desirable that no change should be effected that is not called for by the expression of a predominant sentiment on the part of the people. What evidence have we of this predominance? I ask really as much for instruction as for any other object. I have endeavoured to obtain some information, and that information has not convinced me that there is such a predominance of opinion in favour of this great change. It is a great change, and those who suppose for a moment it can be limited to the proposal of the noble Lord will find they are mistaken. I want to know what evidence we have that there is this desire on the part of the people of this country for a change which will affect the conduct of their lives, and to a great degree their opinions on the most important and solemn subjects? I venture to refer to the proceedings in the other House of Parliament, the popular branch of the Legislature. This is not an old subject; as a public question it has come into prominence only within the last few years. I remember, as well as the noble Marquess, the first occasion on which it was brought forward in the other House of Parliament. The experiment has been made three or four times, and it has been made so recently as during the existence of the present

  1699
  Government. If I am not mistaken, it was made during the last year I sat in the other House. What has been the principal feature of those discussions, debates, and divisions? Unquestionably this—that the proposal has always been defeated by vast majorities, and in those majorities you generally could observe the Members for the great commercial towns and the great centres of industry always voting against the proposition. These are grave circumstances—though I do not say they ought to be decisive. I do not say the question the noble Lord has brought forward is not one that deserves our consideration, and it has received to-night a consideration which it well deserved. But we ought to bear in mind that the proposal cannot rest where it is. I do not speak of the "thin end of the wedge," which has been denounced; I do not speak at all in that sense. I say it is in the nature of things that the proposition which the noble Lord has made must be followed by others, and the question will be the change in the habits of the people, and perhaps in their opinions, the further the matter is pursued. As a mere matter of politics, any substantial or considerable change in the legislation which secures a day of weekly rest to the people of this country should be, I will not say viewed with the greatest suspicion, but examined with the greatest vigilance. I believe this proposed change is viewed with suspicion by the working classes. Whether it is just or not I will not discuss; but if such a feeling is entertained by the labouring classes of this country, it ought to be tenderly treated. I do not think your Lordships should make any movement in the direction proposed unless you have good assurance you are taking a course with which the great body of the people of this country sympathize. No evidence has been given which convinces me of that; and, therefore, it is my duty to oppose a Motion—and I do it with regret—the apparent, and—I say it not offensively—the superficial, object of which would seem to be to civilize the people.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the question was one for Parliament to decide, and it would be for the Trustees of the British Museum to consider the wishes of Parliament. The galleries could be opened with very little inconvenience to the officers of the Museum;
  1700
  but it would be impossible to open the reading room, and, in fact, the reading room was not a place where a working man would desire to spend Sunday afternoon, nor would he find there the kind of literature he would want to read. The opening of the Museum on Saturday afternoon was practically of no advantage to working men, because on leaving work they had to go home to change their clothes, and to allow them time to reach it, it must be kept open until a late hour. The noble Earl spoke of the Motion as involving a great change; but what was the difference in principle between opening Museums and opening Kew Gardens and the gardens and galleries at Hampton Court? The visitor might study in one place the Beauties of the time of Charles II., but not in another the statues and adornments of an earlier age. The workingman could not afford to go often to Hampton Court, and would prefer to visit places easier of access. In other towns galleries were being opened, why not in London? Great numbers had visited the Grosvenor Gallery, and their conduct had given every satisfaction. With regard to the Resolution itself, he confessed the wording of it was not exactly what he approved. For instance, it conceded the point only with regard to working men, while other classes were also interested in the question. At the same time, he must say he could not think that the opening of Museums and Picture Galleries would have the effect of closing public-houses. Upon the whole, he thought if their Lordships accepted this proposal, it would be an agreeable concession to many persons and injurious to none.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwas not disposed to blame the Government for being unwilling in this matter to move without popular support; their business was to follow opinion rather than to lead it; but, precisely for that reason, he, as not being under the restraint of an official position, wished to help in supplying that popular impulse without which nothing could be done. What was the real question before them? Like the noble Duke who had just addressed their Lordships, he was a Trustee of the British Museum, and he quite admitted that it would be inconvenient to open the reading room on Sunday. But that was really not what they had to decide. A question of detail of that kind could very easily

  1701
  be dealt with by the department concerned; but neither their Lordships nor the House of Commons would be unreasonably exacting, if it were found, from considerations of general inconvenience, impossible, in any particular instance, to give practical effect to the Resolution. The real question was whether certain public collections formed by the State, and paid for by taxation levied on all classes of the community, should be accessible to the great mass of the people during the only day of the week on which it was practicable for them to visit them. He thought there was a strong primâ facie case in favour of the principle of the Resolution, and it became stronger when they looked at the size and character of the Metropolis. The city in which they lived was the largest capital in the world, and certainly not the most picturesque. Residents in small towns could easily escape from them by a moderate walk; but there were upwards of 2,000,000 of people who lived in the interior of London who could not escape from the long succession of streets often squalid and generally dreary, and where, certainly on a Sunday, there was nothing to give pleasure or to create interest. The objection to open these galleries, though put in various forms, really came to this—the objectors did not like the idea of their neighbours passing their Sunday afternoons looking at pictures. But they did not lay down any consistent rules on this subject. They had laid out some fine parks and gardens with admirable skill and success, and they did all they could to encourage the people of London to frequent them; but he could not understand on what principle of reason or logic it could be held that it was perfectly innocent and right to walk in gardens and among flower beds, and absolutely wrong to enter a picture gallery. He did not deny the extreme importance of maintaining the day of national rest; but they must recollect that whatever amusements were allowed, some labour must be thrown on those who provided them. They permitted excursion trains, and they constantly saw, in the fine season, omnibuses and vans filled with occupants going into the country—and, on the whole, there was a great preponderance of advantage over disadvantage in this; but it necessarily involved labour imposed on a certain number of men who
  1702
  had to look after these excursionists. Nobody, again, attempted to prevent demonstrations for any purpose in the London parks; but there could not be a large meeting in Hyde Park without having a much larger number of police in attendance than would be required to look after all the galleries and museums in London. He did not deal with the abstract question, on which something might be said as to its not being the duty of the State to enforce what was essentially a religious obligation; but when they were told that the London population should be better employed than in visiting picture galleries, he was led to remark that, even if working men were in the habit of going to church, he did not believe they could find room in the churches. He did not wish to exaggerate the effect of what was proposed. After all, the 2,000 or 3,000 who, if this Resolution were carried, would visit museums and galleries would be inappreciable as compared with the number of those who frequented public-houses. But if public-houses were to be open on Sunday afternoons, they ought not to be the only places of amusement for working men. If they were not to be open, there was the more reason why some rational pleasure should be substituted for that which was taken away. Having taken some part in the discussion of the question in "another place," he felt he should not be doing his duty if he did not support the proposition of the noble Lord.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, there had been a good many fallacies uttered on this subject, and the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the subject (Lord Thurlow) seemed to him especially to abound in them. In the first place, it was taken for granted that the working classes were in favour of this measure; but the proof of this was entirely wanting. The evidence placed in his hand was exactly on the other side. He was informed on authority he could not doubt that when a canvass was made in Bethnal Green, some short time ago, when that Museum was first opened, ten meetings were held of the working classes, eight of which repudiated the idea of opening it on Sunday, and only two were in favour of it. He believed, if they could ascertain the opinion of the working classes, they would find that they shared, the alarm expressed by the

  1703
  noble Marquess on the other side of the House (the Marquess of Ripon), lest any great change in this matter should deprive them of that day of rest which they greatly valued, and which had been so conducive to the prosperity of this country. It was also taken for granted that all thinking men were of the same opinion as the noble Lord. Well, persons who advocated any measure were apt to suppose that those who differed from them were not thinking men. But, desirous as he was and had ever been to promote the welfare of working men, he could not think he should be acting in accordance either with their wishes or their interests in voting with the noble Lord on this occasion. They were told that in some places experiments had been made as to the opening of museums and libraries. But how many places which had museums and libraries had thought it at all necessary to open them on the Sunday? Had the persons who had the control of those museums and libraries in the various towns thought it right to open them? Unless he was misinformed, there were only two or three instances in which these institutions had been thrown open, though it was in the power of the managers to throw them open, and had the working classes wished it they would in all probability have done so. He could not help thinking that there was another fallacy which ran through the whole of this debate—that, after all, this was a step of very little consequence, and that the difference between going through gardens and going through the Grosvenor Gallery, the British Museum, or the National Gallery was scarcely appreciable. But what were their Lordships called upon to do to-night? They were called upon, before the eyes of the people of this Kingdom, to pronounce a deliberate opinion that the policy with regard to the observance of the Sunday hitherto pursued in this country had been a mistake. Those places which had been opened had been opened by some private arrangement; but here Parliament was called upon to make a most solemn declaration that the policy hitherto observed in this matter was a mistake, and that not on account of the wishes of the great body of the working classes, but of some Societies, one of which made no secret of its objects, but told them what were the ulterior views it had on this subject.
  1704
  But, with all respect for those who laboured in those Societies, their Lordships ought to know what they were aiming at before assenting to their request and making a great change in public policy. He was convinced that if any such change was made there was great danger of the day of rest being lost. The noble Marquess had pointed out, in terms better than he himself could use, the evils which existed on the Continent of Europe in this matter. Were they to say to the working classes—"You have made a mistake hitherto as to the Sunday. You are to enjoy yourselves, and to use the day in the way most conducive to your pleasure?" Whatever amelioration of society might be expected to follow from such a course as was now proposed, there would still be a large number of persons to whom the greatest pleasure in life would be to add a few pence to the wretched wages which the six days of work gave them. Let their Lordships look at the Continent of Europe, and observe the hard-working peasant coming back from the Sunday's labour in the fields, or 'let them go to Paris and see the work that was carried on there on Sundays as on other days. These things were full of warning to them not without sufficient reason to depart from that policy which had hitherto governed them in this important matter.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 59; Not-Contents 67: Majority 8.

  CONTENTS.

  Bedford, D.

  Canterbury, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Cardwell, V.

  Powerscourt, V. [Teller.]

  Ailesbury, M.

  Bristol, M.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Aberdare, L.

  Ripon, M.

  Annaly, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Belper, L.

  Brownlow, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Derby, E.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Harrington, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E.

  Foxford, L (E. Limerick.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Granard, L.(E. Granard.)

  Ravensworth, E.

  Spencer, E.

  Greville, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Hammond, L.

  1705

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Hatherton, L.

  Rivers, L.

  Houghton, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Kenry, L.(E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Kesteven, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Monson, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Thurlow, L. [Teller.]

  Mostyn, L.

  Truro, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Waveney, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bagot, L.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Northumberland, D.

  Richmond, D.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Abergavenny, M.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Salisbury, M.

  Clinton, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Conyers, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Denman, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  de Ros, L. [Teller.]

  Effingham, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Forester, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Gordon of Drumearn, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Powis, E.

  Hartismere, L. (L. Henniker.)

  Redesdale, E.

  Selkirk, E.

  Kenlis, L.(M. Headfort.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Bridport, V.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Eversley, V.

  Massy, L.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen)

  Norton, L.

  O'Neill, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Saltoun, L.

  Melville, V.

  Selborne, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Templetown, V.

  Templemore, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Tollemache, L.

  Ventry, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  St. Davids, L. Bp.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the Negative.

OMNIBUS REGULATION BILL.—(No. 41.)
(The Chairman of Committees.)
OMNIBUS REGULATION BILL.—(No. 41.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES), in moving that the Bill be now read a second
  1706
  time, said, its object was to make provision for promoting the safety and comfort of persons travelling in omnibuses, and to give powers to omnibus proprietors for the preservation of order. The measure, therefore, provided that no intoxicated person should be permitted to enter into, or mount upon any omnibus; or if found there, he might be removed by the conductor; swearing and obscene language was not to be permitted. Persons offensive in demeanour or dress were to be removed; smoking inside an omnibus was forbidden; no passenger was to blow a horn or other noisy or musical instrument except with the consent of the conductor; no animals were to be admitted; and loaded fire-arms were prohibited. These were the chief provisions for the protection of passengers. For the protection of the proprietors, the local authorities were to make general regulations as to the condition of the vehicles; and, on the application of the proprietor, might make such other regulations as might seem to them proper. The conductor of an omnibus was directed to enforce the provisions of the Act, and, should he fail to do so, he would be deemed to have committed an offence against the Act.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, the Bill was entirely one of detail. The matter had been referred to the police authorities; but their report had not yet been received.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 13 th instant.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.