Sitting of 12 May 1879

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class II., Votes 1 to 17.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Inclosure Provisional Order (Matterdale Common) * [171]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Redmoor and Golberdon Commons) * [172]; Inclosure Provisional Order (Maltby Lands) * [173]; Inclosure Provisional Order (East Stainmore Common) * [171].
First Reading—Metropolis (Little Coram Street, Bloomsbury, Wells Street, Poplar, and Great Peter Street, Westminster,) Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation* [175].
Second Reading—West India Loans* [167]; Courts of Justice Building Act (1865) Amendment [156]; Valuation of Lands and Assessments (Scotland)* [144]; Supreme Court of Judicature Acts Amendment* [134].
Committee—Report—Summary Jurisdiction (recomm.) [138–169]; Criminal Codo (Indictable Offences)* [170].
Third Reading—Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment* [16], and passed.

NOTICE OF MOTION.
  PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN.

    NOTICE OF MOTION.
    MR. E. JENKINSgave Notice, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), to-morrow, to move—
    "That, in order to prevent the growing abuse, under the advice of Ministers, of the privilege and influence of the Crown, it is necessary that the Royal Prerogative should be more strictly limited and defined."

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH CLERKS.—QUESTION.
  MR. M. BROOKSasked the Postmaster General, Whether, referring to the memorial from the telegraph clerks in the Dublin Post Office, it is intended to raise their pay to an equality with that given to the clerks in the principal English cities discharging similar duties; and, if so, when the reform may be expected to come into operation?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, I beg to inform the hon. Gentleman that the question is now under the consideration of the Government.

  CONSTABULARY (IRELAND)—CASE OF SUB-CONSTABLE JOYCE.—QUESTION.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether sub-constable Joyce, and several other constables of the County Sligo Constabulary, have verbally complained to the county inspector, as regards fines, removals, or other punishments, as being of a harsh and unjust character; and, whether such constables and sub-constables have, notwithstanding such verbal complaints, signed a statement through fear of consequences, that they had no complaints to make; and why the county inspector did not himself, or his clerks, put such complaints in writing, and forward them to the Inspector General of Constabulary?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, as I explained upon a recent occasion, there is a prescribed form in which complaints should be made by members of the Constabulary Force, and I find that sub-constable Joyce made no official complaint. It appears that the County Inspector very properly took an opportunity of urging upon him verbally the desirability of abstaining from the course of conduct which had led to the imposition of a recent fine, but that no complaint was made in the official form against that fine; and it was not the duty of the County Inspector to forward reports of conversations. I see that the hon. and gallant Gentleman attributes to members of the Force that they have signed incorrect statements through fear of consequences. I believe that there is no foundation whatever for that allegation; and as the conduct of the County Inspector is called in question, I have made inquiries, from which I find that in three years, during which time he has had upwards of 200 men under his command, the total fines imposed by him have only averaged £2 6s. 8d. per annum.

  AFGHANISTAN—THE WAR—GENERAL ROBERTS' DESPATCH.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL SHUTEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether General Roberts' Supplementary Despatch, published in part only by the Indian Government in the "Gazette of India," dated Calcutta, March 8th, referring to the important services rendered

  123
  by the 1st Brigade at the successful direct attack and capture of the Peiwar Kotal, will appear in its entirety in the "London Gazette?"
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, I am afraid I can only say that the whole of this supplementary despatch received in this country shall appear in The Gazette immediately.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—SURGEON MAJOR REYNOLDS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. ERRINGTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether under the new regulations, the recent promotion of Surgeon Major Reynolds, of the 2–24th, for his distinguished services at Rorke's Drift, would not in the ordinary course of events have taken place in a few months; and, under these circumstances, if he will consider whether some further recognition might not fairly be made of that officer's gallant conduct, and of the prominent part he took in the defence on that memorable occasion?
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: Sir, in the absence of the Secretary of State for War, I may say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question, that very great service has undoubtedly been done by Surgeon Major Reynolds in South Africa, and he was specially promoted 14 months before he could have been in the ordinary course of things, and by that he had passed over the heads of 64 officers.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE 60th RIFLES—COURT MARTIAL.

    QUESTION.
    MR. FRENCHasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House all the Papers relating to the trial by court martial of a sergeant of the 60th Rifles for retiring a picket on the alarm of the enemy without the order of his officer, in which he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude and reduction to the ranks?
    COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY: Sir, the only Papers relating to the trial which have been received are those embodied in Lord Chelmsford's despatch of April 10, which has been published in The London Gazette. No further Papers are expected.

  MEDICAL REFORM.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, considering the complicated circumstances in which the important question of medical reform is now placed, and in order to avoid further unnecessary delay, he will now agree to its reference to a Select Committee as soon as possible, so that some progress may be made towards dealing with it?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, I stated some time back the course that the Government intended to pursue—namely, to embody in a Bill those educational reforms which had met, after protracted discussion, with the approval of the vast majority of the Medical Profession, and to refer to a Select Committee the disputed question of the constitution of the Medical Council, undertaking that the Government Bill should not be proceeded with until the Report of the Committee had been received. This course, in our opinion, was the most convenient and the most likely to save time; but I have been unable to carry it out, as the appointment of the Committee is blocked by an Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, which he will not withdraw. We are, therefore, in this position—that we must either accede to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman to refer all the questions contained in all the Medical Bills to a Select Committee, or postpone indefinitely—for the same difficulty would arise next Session—the prospect of medical reform. As this is a contingency much feared by medical reformers, we are ready to adopt the inconvenient procedure forced on us rather than sacrifice our Bill; and if, therefore, those hon. Gentlemen who have Amendments to the Medical Bills will withdraw them, so as to allow them to be read a second time, I will move that they be referred in their entirety to a Select Committee.

  SPAIN—LABOUR IN CUBA.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any information as to the terms of a Treaty or Convention concluded between the Spanish Government and the King of Annam for the supply of Annamite labourers to Cuba; and, if not, whether he will endeavour to ascertain how far

  125
  those terms are calculated to secure the labourers in question from the oppressions which indentured labourers from other countries have endured and are enduring in Cuba?
  MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, that an Annamite Mission visited Madrid last year; but in the Report received at the time from our Chargé d' Affaires no mention was made of any Convention between the Spanish Government and the King of Annam for the supply of Annamite labourers to Cuba. Due inquiry would, however, be made into the subject now that it had been brought to the notice of the Government.

  INDIA FAMINE COMMISSION.

    QUESTION.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, about the India Famine Commission, as to what parts of India that Commission has visited, what results brought out, where the Commissioners are at present, what they are doing, and when may their Report be expected; and, finally, what has as yet been the cost of this inquiry?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Sir, this Commission has visited or received evidence from the greater part of India. The result has been the collection of a great mass of very valuable information, which will require considerable time to sift and arrange. That work has been intrusted to Mr. Justice Cunningham and Mr. Elliott. Mr. Caird has come back to England, General Strachey has resumed his position as a member of the Council of the Secretary of State, and the other members are in India. The Commission is now considering its Report; but I fear some time must elapse before it is completed.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—BIRMINGHAM BOARD SCHOOLS.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. HARDCASTLEasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to the report in the "Times" of May 5th, of a meeting of the Birmingham School Board, at which a resolution was carried "that systematic moral instruction should be given in all the Birming-
    126
    ham Board Schools," and the chairman proposed that special times should be set apart for moral instruction, the character of which he indicated in these words—
    "That the children should be taught that there were moral laws, and that those laws should be enforced, and that if in the course of the instruction the name of God was mentioned he saw no harm in it;"
    whether the setting apart special times for teaching this vague morality would come within the power given by the Act to set apart special times for religious teaching; and, whether, under the Conscience Clause, the children of parents who objected to the kind of instruction likely to be deduced from such materials by teachers prohibited from alluding to religion in any way, would be allowed to withdraw during the time set apart for this systematic moral teaching?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, the only information which we have concerning the proposed arrangement is derived from the public Press; and from that it appears that a discussion did take place at the Birmingham School Board, and that, in the opinion of the majority of the Board, the moral condition of the children in the Board Schools was not altogether satisfactory. There was very considerable divergence of opinion as to the remedy to be adopted. As regards the second part of the Question, I am afraid that until we are in possession of the code of moral ethics which it is proposed to teach, it would not be possible for me to give an answer, especially as the only information we have is the opinion of the chairman that the elder children should be put through a slight course of Acts of Parliament. In regard to the last part of the Question, the Education Act of 1870 did not contemplate the contingency of any School Board substituting moral for the religious instruction generally received; and I am sure my hon. Friend will not ask me to give an opinion on any complication which may ensue from the adoption of such a proposal until it comes before us in due form.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the noble Lord allow me to ask him, Whether he is not mistaken in saying that anything has appeared in the public Press or elsewhere which would justify the statement that the majority of the Birmingham School Board are dissatis-

    127
    fied with the present moral condition of the children under their charge?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have here the report of the discussion at a meeting of the Birmingham School Board. The motion which was brought forward by the chairman, which was ultimately carried, was met by an amendment that such moral instruction was not necessary. That amendment was lost by four votes to nine. The next amendment was that instruction should be given based on the Bible, and it was lost by five votes to seven. The original motion, which was to the effect that moral instruction might be given, was carried, there being 11 votes for and nine against.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The noble Lord has not answered the Question that I ventured to put to him—namely, what authority he has for the statement that the majority of the Birmingham School Board are of opinion that the moral condition of the children under their charge is at the present time unsatisfactory?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: The statement which I made, and the only information I possessed, was derived from the public Press, from which it appeared that, in the opinion of the majority of the Board, the moral condition of the children in their schools was not altogether satisfactory. If the moral condition of the children in the Birmingham schools be thoroughly satisfactory, I cannot understand why the chairman made the motion which he did.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—THE BALKAN GARRISONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that the Governments of Turkey and Russia have come to an agreement by which the former gives up the right of placing garrisons in the Balkans and of occupying with troops any places in Eastern Roumelia? He also wished to ask, Whether the Government can confirm the intelligence which was published in the "Standard" of to-day? The correspondent of the "Standard" says—
  "General Obrutscheff, the adjutant general of the Czar, stepped up to the altar, and, surrounded by the leading ecclesiastics, addressed the crowd who filled the nave and aisles. He had come to them, he said, as the representative
  128
  of the powerful Monarch who had liberated them from the yoke of the infidels, and would defend their independence against the whole world. The Czar wished, through him, to acquaint the Bulgarians with the fact that in deference to a letter addressed by him to the Turkish Sultan, the latter had abandoned the idea of sending any troops into East Roumelia. Henceforth, East Roumelia will be a free country, exempt from the oppression that might be exercised by the Turkish troops in the Balkans, at Ichtiman, or at Bourgas. To neither of these places would an Ottoman soldier approach again under the arrangements arrived at."
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, I am sorry to say that I have not seen The Standard, nor have I heard anything about the Notice which the right hon. Gentleman read to the House. In regard to the Question on the Paper, I have only to tell the right hon. Gentleman that we know of no such agreement as is described in his Question.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1870—CATTLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.—QUESTION.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Vice President of the Council, If he is aware that Professor W. W. Williams, of the Edinburgh Veterinary College, had written a letter to Dr. Laidlaw, veterinary pathologist of Albany, New York, denying in the most emphatic terms that pleuro-pneumonia has existed in any cattle hitherto imported from the United States; whether his attention has been called to a letter of Professor Williams, dated 29th of March, in which the following passage occurs:—
  "Since first arrival of 'Ontario' with cattle, others have arrived at Liverpool, and I have examined the lungs said by Privy Council inspectors to have pleuro-pneumonia, and satisfied all who have seen them that no pleuro-pneumonia has arrived here from America; indeed, everybody is surprised that such a gross mistake should have been made. The last lot—seven in number—examined by me had bronchitis, with collapse of the lung; but not a trace of pleurisy nor of pneumonia, yet they were declared by the authorities in London to have typical pleuro-pneumonia. I have the specimens most carefully preserved, and am ready to show them to the whole world if necessary;"
  and, what steps he proposes to take to satisfy himself of the correctness of these statements?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, a statement of Professor Williams was forwarded to the Privy Council Office by the Canadian Government last month,

  129
  and upon receiving it the Privy Council requested Professor Brown, the head of the Veterinary Department, to investigate the subject. I will read the Memorandum which he has drawn up, and which was sent in reply to the Canadian Government—
  "On January 26 the steam ship Ontario arrived at Liverpool, having on board 195 cattle and two carcases; 87 head of cattle had been thrown overboard, making the total number shipped 284. On examining one of the carcases, the Inspector at Liverpool found evidence of pleuro-pneumonia, and forwarded portions of the lung to the Veterinary Department. This specimen was found to represent the characteristic indications of the contagious pleuro-pneumonia of cattle so well known in this country. By direction of the Lord President, I immediately instructed Mr. Duguid, one of the Inspectors of this Department, to proceed to Liverpool and report as to the condition of the animals which had been detained there. Mr. Duguid remained at Liverpool and superintended the slaughter of the cattle, and in the course of the post-mortem examination he detected 13 cases of pleuro-pneumonia in various stages. Since the landing of the cattle from the Ontario in January, cases of the disease have been detected among cattle from the United States by the Inspector at Liverpool in three other cargoes, and in one cargo by the Inspector at the Foreign Cattle Market, Deptford. Portions of the lungs taken from the diseased cattle were forwarded by the Inspectors to the Veterinary Department; and I took the opportunity of submitting some of the specimens to the inspection of several experts who have made pleuro-pneumonia of cattle a subject of special inquiry, and they were unanimous in their expression of opinion that the morbid changes were indicative of contagious pleuro-pneumonia. I may add that the alterations which are apparent in the lung structure in contagious pleuro-pneumonia, even in the earliest stages, are so different from those which occur in any other affection of the lungs of the ox, that no competent pathologist would experience any difficulty in arriving at a correct conclusion as to the nature of the disease."
  I may add that since the date of this Report six cargoes of cattle from America have been landed at Liverpool and Deptford in which contagious pleuro-pneumonia has been found to exist.

  INDIA—THE INDIAN BUDGET.

    QUESTIONS.
    MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will inform the House on what Motion the Indian Budget will be brought forward; and, whether he will arrange that it shall be brought forward in such a
    130
    way as will allow of the opinion of the House being taken on the financial position of India?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that he had consulted with his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India as to the most convenient course to be adopted, and, having reference to the Notice of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), he thought the best course would be to proceed with the Committee on the Indian Loans Bill. The House would be in Committee when the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman as to the amount of the loans would be moved. On going into Committee, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India would make a statement of the financial position of India; and he presumed that the question to be then submitted would be of such a character as to give ample opportunity for discussing the financial position of the country. There would also be other opportunities for raising other points in connection with the subject.
    MR. FAWCETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask your opinion upon a very important question of Parliamentary procedure which affects the Privileges of this House. As I understand, the Under Secretary of State for India will make the Budget Statement—the entire financial statement of India—on the Motion which is already in Committee for raising a loan of £10,000,000—that Motion being in Committee, it will be absolutely impossible to raise any question except for reducing by the Amendment the loan, or rejecting the proposal altogether—I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, Whether it is not unusual, when the Budget is brought forward, that the House should not be afforded an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the general financial condition of India? I understand that under the arrangement proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that opportunity would not be given.
    MR. SPEAKER: The more usual course, no doubt, is for the Indian Budget to be proposed either in Committee or on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. At the same time, I cannot say that the course proposed to be taken by the Government is out of Order, although it is unusual.
    MR. FAWCETT: After the opinion expressed by you, Sir, and feeling that the course proposed by the Government

    131
    would take away from the House its proper opportunity of discussion, I beg to give Notice that if the Government persist in their resolution to make the Budget Statement, not on the Motion that you do leave the Chair, but on the proposition on going into Committee, I shall resist it by moving, as soon as we get into Committee, that Progress be reported.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—RAILWAYS.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL BEAUMONTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he is aware that portable narrow gauge Railways can be laid down at the rate of several miles per day, in such a country as many parts of South Africa, and that an offer from a responsible firm has been made to undertake such work; and if, in view of the extreme importance of a ready means of transport to the success of the War in Zululand, he will give his attention to the subject?
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAY, in reply, said, a suggestion had been made that portable narrow-gauge railways in South Africa might be laid down at the rate of three miles a-day; but the information in the hands of the Secretary of State did not lead him to the same conclusion.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—SHIPPING OFFICE FEES.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will cause to be placed upon the Table of the House without delay, an account of the Income and Expenditure for Shipping Office Fees received for the examination of masters and mates, and for engaging and discharging ships' crews, for the year ending 31st December 1878?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: Sir, a partial Return, such as the hon. Member suggests, would, I think, be misleading. I propose, therefore, to lay upon the Table as soon as possible an approximate Return of the Income and Expenditure of the Mercantile Marine Fund for the last financial year, which will, I hope, give the hon. Gentleman all the information he desires.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "IRON DUKE."

    QUESTION.
    MR. GOURLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it be correct that the
    132
    ironclad ship "Iron Duke" is on shore at Shanghai; if so, if he will be good enough to inform the House what damage the vessel has sustained, and, if got off, if she can be docked at Hong Kong or elsewhere in Chinese waters?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Sir, the Admiralty has not received any information, either from the Admiral commanding in China or the Captain of the Iron Duke; but information reached the Admiralty on Thursday from Lloyd's, which was to the effect that the Iron Duke was on shore, and I have this afternoon received a telegram through the Committee of Lloyd's—and I owe them thanks for their courtesy—informing me that the Iron Duke is not now on shore, but that she has been got off with assistance; and, so far as we know, there is no reason to suppose that she has sustained any damage. The Iron Duke was docked at Hong Kong on the 29th of March, and I think it was mentioned in the newspapers at the time. But she could be docked both at Hong Kong and Japan. If I receive any further information, I will take care to mention it as soon as possible to the House.

  PREROGATIVE OF THE CROWN.

    ALTERATION OF MOTION.
    MR. DILLWYN: I find, Sir, that an interpretation has been placed upon the Resolution of which I have given Notice for to-morrow other than that which it was my intention to put upon it. It has been understood to imply a censure upon the Crown. Nothing is further from my intention; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) has given a Notice which meets my view perfectly, without being liable to any such interpretation, I beg to intimate that I shall either alter my Resolution in accordance with the Notice of the hon. Member, or accept his Resolution tomorrow evening.
    Subsequently, Mr. Dillwyn gave Notice as follows:—
    "Constitutional Usage (Functions of the Sovereign),—That, to prevent the growing abuse by Her Majesty's Ministers of the prerogative and influence of the Crown, and consequent augmentation of the power of the Government in enabling them, under cover of the supposed personal interposition of the Sovereign, to withdraw from the cognizance and control of this House matters relating to policy and expen-

    133
    diture properly within the scope of its powers and privileges, it is necessary that the mode and limits of the action of the prerogative should he more strictly observed."

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE LATEST TELEGRAM.

    OBSERVATION.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I have received information from South Africa which it may be of interest to the House to hear, as it conveys later intelligence from the Transvaal than any which has yet been published. It is dated Cape Town, April 27—
    "High Commissioner at Pretoria telegraphs that Boers' camp broke up on the 18th inst. and all have dispersed quietly to their homes. The Conference between High Commissioner and Boers' Committee at Erasmus Farm took place April 12, lasted five hours and a-half, and passed off in a perfectly friendly manner."

  INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND).

    QUESTION.
    MR. W. HOLMSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the fact that the rate of payment for children in industrial schools in Scotland is only four shillings and six pence per week, whereas it is five shillings per week for children in such schools in England and Ireland, and moreover the Secretary to the Treasury having last year given an assurance to the House "that he would consider the question, with a view, if possible, of getting rid of the grievance complained of," he is now prepared to put Scotland, as regards this grant, on an equality with England and Ireland?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, that this matter had been under consideration, but thought the most convenient time to discuss the question was when the Vote came on in the Estimates.

  THE NATIONAL FINANCES AND TREATIES—CONTROL OF PARLIAMENT.

    QUESTION.
    MR. NEWDEGATEgave Notice that either on the Motion for the second reading, or on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, that the House may resolve itself into Committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, he would move the following Resolution:—
    134
    "This House will not recognize or accept as binding any Treaty or other engagements entered into by Her Majesty's Ministers which might forestall or limit the control of this House over the financial resources and taxation of this Country, until full information as to such contemplated engagements has been laid upon the Table of this House, and this House shall have had the opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon."
    He wished to meet the convenience of the Government in bringing forward the Motion; and he wished, therefore, to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he proposed to proceed with the second reading of the Bill that evening?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he had hoped to move the second reading that evening; but as his hon. Friend was going to raise so important a question in connection with it, it might be convenient that there should be some little further delay. As his hon. Friend, however, had expressed his willingness to move his Amendment on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, the second reading might be taken that evening, and the Committee fixed for some convenient day.

  PARLIAMENT—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Business of the House. Wednesday, the 28th instant, was the Derby Day, and the following Sunday would be Whit Sunday. The time at which the House would adjourn for the Whitsuntide Recess was, therefore, matter of importance to those hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper for the eve of the Derby Day. He himself happened to have the first Notice on the Paper for Tuesday, the 27th. It was an important Motion relating to the agriculture and manufactures of the country, and he thought many hon. Gentlemen besides himself would be anxious to know whether the Government would permit his Motion to be discussed; and, if so, whether it would be at the ordinary hour, or at any other time?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I have considered, in conjunction with my Colleagues, which would be the most convenient day for the House to rise for the Whitsuntide Holi-

  135
  days, and we are of opinion that, as there was but a short Holiday at Easter, it would, perhaps, be convenient to the House to adjourn from Tuesday, the 27th instant, to the Monday week following. The House would not, of course, rise on the Tuesday until after the conclusion of the last Business for which it met. I intend to propose that we should take a Morning Sitting on that day. That would not involve the necessity for the House rising at the end of the Morning Sitting. The House may sit again in the evening at 9 o'clock, and as the question which the hon. Member intends to raise has attracted a good deal of interest, I think it would then have a fair chance of being discussed.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, that, after the intimation which had just been made, it was not his intention of bringing on his Motion on Tuesday evening, the 27th instant; but he might bring it forward in opposition to the proposal for a Morning Sitting, or in some other way.

  THE METROPOLITAN BRIDGES.

    QUESTION.
    SIR JAMES LAWRENCEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, When the remaining toll bridges over the Thames will be thrown open free to the public?
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG, in reply, said, there was no authority for the statement which had appeared in the public prints that five additional bridges would be thrown open on the 17th instant. The second section of five bridges would, however, be opened within three weeks. He could not at present fix the precise day. There were beyond that number three bridges which would remain to be thrown open.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. [Progress.]

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) £23,343, to complete the sum for the Patent Office, &c.
    (2.) £20,744, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
    (3.) £8,332, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission and West India Islands Relief Commission.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINinquired when the Report of the Public Works Loan Commission was likely to be printed and distributed to hon. Members? It was of extreme importance that this Report should be in their hands before they proceeded to the discussion of the Public Works Loan Act, inasmuch as it would contain certain information which had not been included in any previous Report. The House ought to be in possession of information as to the total amount of losses which had been incurred, and on what classes of loans these losses appeared. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give him some assurance that the information he desired would be furnished to the House.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhad no doubt the information would be very useful, and he thought he would be able to present it to the House before they discussed the Public Works Loan Act. He would not like, however, to pledge himself on that point.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £17,420, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
    (5.) £38,801, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked whether any arrangement had been made in view of taking the Census in 1881? He might remind the Committee and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this question was put in the Session before last; that it was very necessary to make timely arrangements for having uniformity in the three divisions as to the information to be obtained; that the arrangements for putting forward the vast store of information should be agreed as common for the three divisions; and that the publication of the Reports and tables should be made promptly. If possible, the Irish tables should not be spread over so many years as for the last Census. There was also needed an Act of Parliament to authorize the Census being taken, and to give legality to the demands for information. Probably, it would be advisable to form a Select Committee of a few Members to make the requisite inquiries.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied that he had done nothing in regard to the matter yet; but he would bear it in mind.
    Vote agreed to.
    (6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £377,088, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for Stationery, Printing, and Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for the two Houses of Parliament, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Stationery Office, and the cost of Stationery Office Publications, and of the Gazette Offices; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including a Grant in Aid of the publication of Parliamentary Debates."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it would be in the recollection of the Committee that, in the discussion on the Supplementary Estimates, the Secretary to the Treasury was asked to make some arrangement by which some of the more important documents printed by the House should be circulated to the free libraries of the country under representative management. It was understood that the Eon. Gentleman would communicate with Mr. Speaker to ascertain whether the documents of the House could be so distributed. He desired to ask what progress had been made in the matter?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he well remembered the promise he had made, and he had since been in consultation with Mr. Speaker on this particular point. The whole question of the future printing of the Parliamentary Papers was now being considered. Sufficient progress, however, had not been made to enable him to say that arrangements had been made with regard to the distribution of these documents. He assured the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that the subject had not escaped his attention; and he hoped before very long to be in a position to make some definite statement.
    MR. BRISTOWEasked if any part of the investigation had been directed to the cost of the various publications? It was one thing to go into the question of printing, and another to go into the
    138
    cost. He could not help thinking that this was a matter of some consequence.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the cost formed one of the special items of consideration.
    MR. BRISTOWEdid not mean the cost of production, but the cost of the publications to the public outside—to the purchaser.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONunderstood what the hon. Gentleman meant; but, at the same time, he did not hold out any hope that it would be possible to reduce the price to any great extent. At the present, the price represented only the cost of the work.
    MR. BRISTOWEhoped something would be done in this matter, because it was merely the cost of the printing and the paper that ought to be charged.
    MR. MONKasked for an explanation why the Estimate for the coming year in respect to printing was £15,000 above that last year? Last year the amount was £121,000, and this year it was £136,000. That was a very large increase, and, without some explanation, the Committee ought not to be asked for so large an extra sum.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONobserved, that if the hon. Member would refer to the Estimates, he would find that the real increase in the Vote amounted to £11,200. Of the sum mentioned, £3,800 was only an apparent increase; £2,000 was for the new forms required in the biennial re-assessment of the Income Tax, and the remainder represented an actual increase of work for several of the Departments.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, there was an amount included in the Vote for the Queen's University, and which might be called a long-standing sore between the Irish Members and the Financial Department of the Government. He would not go into the merits of the question; but it was obvious that, if the protest against this institution was to have any value, the Vote could not pass unchallenged. The Government were said to be anxious to give Ireland equality in University education; but when he saw that the Queen's College, which was an institution opposed to the general spirit of the greatest part of the Irish nation, was the only institution of the kind getting its stationery at the expense of the nation, he could not but object. He should be glad if the Vote

    139
    could be put off until Irish Members could receive Notice of it; but if the Government insisted upon taking it, he must put the House to the trouble of a Division; and he should, therefore, move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £150.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £376,918, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for Stationery, Printing, and Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for the two Houses of Parliament, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Stationery Office, and the cost of Stationery Office Publications, and of the Gazette Offices; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including a Grant in Aid of the publication of Parliamentary Debates."—(Major Nolan.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONexplained that it was true that in the total amount for stationery there was included a sum sufficient for the Queen's University; but should the House decide that the Queen's University should not be retained on the Estimates, the fact of the House having passed this Vote would in no way affect that decision. The sum put down was not the sum it was proposed to spend during the present y ear; but it was the sum put down for stationery in 1877–8, and the only object in putting it down was to show, for the information of the Committee, how the total amount was distributed among the Departments. Should the House decide against the Queen's College, and this money not be spent, then it would find its way back to the Exchequer as a surplus on the Stationery Vote. By passing the Vote as it stood, they would not be committing themselves on the subject of University education.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYconfessed that last year, when the subject was discussed, he did not understand the explanation given, and he did not understand it now. £332,441 was required for stationery, and he was told how the sum was to be applied among the different Departments. Were not the Committee voting the surplus for this year? Was it expenditure already incurred?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, what he wished to convey was that this Vote for stationery was a general
    140
    Vote, and no part of it was appropriated to any one purpose. There was no charge in the Vote now before the Committee for the Queen's Colleges; but the amount granted out of a Vote in the previous year to the Queen's Colleges was stated. As the House once expressed a desire to know the way in which the business of the Stationery Office was managed, a list of amounts, showing how the Vote had been appropriated, was put in for the first time last year. The list given in the Vote now before the Committee did not show how this money would be appropriated, but how the money which was voted in 1866–7 was appropriated, and out of that sum £129 went for the Queen's Colleges. That simply showed the Committee what was then done. In 1881–2 there would be a similar list, showing how the money now to be voted had been appropriated, and not before.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, as he understood it, the Crown required £332,441 for stationery for the present year, and it gave in the Vote information as to how a similar sum was expended in a previous year; but, at any rate, if the £332,441 was wanted, and was neither too much nor too little, ipso facto if they refused the Vote, the Department must go without it.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwished to make the matter plain. Nothing could possibly be given to the Queen's Colleges until the Committee had sanctioned it in the Estimates. After the Vote had passed which sanctioned an appropriation from it to the Queen's Colleges, but without naming any particular sum, it would not necessarily follow that anything would be given to the Queen's Colleges, unless it was shown they required it, The figures now before the Committee ought not to appear in the Estimates at all, except to show how the Stationery Office did its work. It did not in the least imply that £120 would be wanted this year, nor did it imply that the Department would be able to give that amount, because the sum total for all purposes was all that came before the Committee. There very often was an excess on the Vote, and sometimes a deficiency; and if there was a deficiency, they would have to make a Supplementary Estimate.
    MR. RYLANDSunderstood that it was not necessarily intended to dispose

    141
    of the amount of the Vote in precisely the same channels as before, and in the same way. It might happen that the Queen's Colleges might not apply for anything this year, or for less, whilst double the usual amount might be wanted in some other direction; but, on the whole, in a rough way, in order to satisfy the Committee, the Government took what they had expended in the different Departments before, to show that a similar amount would be required again. He noticed that £11,500 was put down for printing for borough and county prisons; and having regard to the recent taking over of the prisons, he wished to know on what that Estimate was based?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he believed it was a fair and ample Estimate; but, with the short experience they had had of the new system, he could not speak with certainty as to its accuracy.
    MR. J. COWENwished to call attention to a point of some importance, affecting the officials of this Department, and that was the very great change which had recently taken place in the character of the paper on which their publications were printed. Formerly, the paper was chiefly composed of rags, and showed greater tenacity; but during the last few years, the paper had been made of various fibrous materials, such as wood-fibre, straw, and Esparto grass. In some cases, the paper was composed of two-thirds fibre, and one-third rags, and the consequence was that, in a few years, it became spotted, the ink gathered into places, and a good deal of the printing became unreadable. Any publication that had to be preserved must be printed on good paper. It would be well if the authorities were aware of that fact, and if the quality of the official paper were of a little better description. It had been recently found that a large mass of papers in the Government Offices at Washington had become totally useless from the poor quality of the material, and the Government had had to go to great expense in re-printing some of them. He did not know that the world would be much the worse if many of our official papers were not preserved; but he commended the subject to the attention of the Stationery Office.
    MAJOR NOLANgave credit to the Treasury for putting forward the very
    142
    best Estimate they could obtain; but there was another point of greater importance than the accuracy of the Estimate. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had told the Committee that none of the money could be expended on Queen's Colleges, until they had decided that there should be Queen's Colleges at all in Ireland. Now, if he had a hope of beating the Government on that question, he should think it would be better to wait; but, at present, he had no such hope. Then came the question whether the Irish Members, who were admittedly in the minority, should wait for one big Vote, and then have done with it, or whether it would not be better for them to divide every time they had a fair opportunity. Now, the present seemed to him to be an excellent opportunity of showing their dislike, not to the Queen's Colleges, but to the system which made them the only Collegiate institutions open to the people of Ireland, and did not give them the chance of having Colleges such as they wished. He was sorry so few Irishmen were present; but he thought it would, perhaps, be better to divide.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYadvised the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) not to go to a Division, as the Queen's Colleges would get the Vote, notwithstanding any such action he might take.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he had made a note of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) with regard to the quality of the paper. He believed that under the new contract the paper was supplied at a fixed rate, which was rather above the market price; and, therefore, he hoped it would be of such a quality as to meet the objection of his hon. Friend. He could assure the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) that should the House sanction any other College in Ireland, the Stationery Department would supply their needs out of the Vote. Whatever Department the House sanctioned would come out of this Vote; but the House had to sanction beforehand that the Queen's Colleges should be continued, before those Colleges would get anything from the Stationery Office.
    MR. RAMSAYbelieved the Committee now thoroughly understood the

    143
    meaning of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and did not see how the hon. and gallant Member for Gal way (Major Nolan) would profit by a Division. He (Mr. Ramsay) objected to the manner in which the details of the Vote were given. The details of the past year were available; but the House did not possess the details for the year 1879–80.
    MR. HIBBERTasked whether the amount of the Vote might not be reduced by the printing of the Department being performed in prisons, under the Government control? When the gaol at Gloucester was under the control of the county—before its transfer to the Government—the whole of the official printing for the county was very successfully performed by the prisoners in that establishment, and he saw no reason why that should not be done for all the prisons throughout the country.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthought it was not an inopportune moment to call attention to an item in the Vote with reference to the Foreign Office. During the last year or two Papers of great interest and importance had been furnished by the Foreign Office to the Press, and to other persons, before they reached the hands of hon. Members of the House, who certainly might expect to receive the earliest information from the Government. There might be a reason to give an explanation; but he thought some explanation was required why hon. Members were not furnished with the documents at the time they were entitled to them—namely, at the earliest possible opportunity.
    MR. SULLIVANsupposed the hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) did not refer to the surreptitious obtaining of public documents; but he must say he did not agree with the hon. Baronet in his estimate of the relations which ought to exist, and did exist, between the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the public Press. He appealed to the Committee to say that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State, in affording reasonable facilities to the Press, had conducted those relations with great tact and judgment, and with public usefulness. The documents to which reference was made were not published previously to their delivery to Members, but simultaneously; and if the hon. Baronet could show that that was not
    144
    so, and that Members were put in an inferior position, he should feel the justice of the complaint. But, under present circumstances, if a public document were put into his hands in the morning, and he found that The Times and Telegraph, The Standard and Daily News, had it as well, he did not feel that he suffered any injury. As one formerly connected with journalism, he said the relations between the Foreign Office and the Press were useful for public information; and he hoped as long as the present Under Secretary of State was connected with that Department, he would continue to recognize those relations as being of great public service.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he did not at first move to reduce this Vote, because he merely wanted to have some information. What he complained of was, that during the Eastern Question he did not receive Papers until three or four days after he read of them in the morning papers. That was a state of things which he did not think should continue; and, therefore, in order to elicit some information from the Government, he proposed to reduce the Vote by the sum of £5,000.
    THE CHAIRMANobserved, that the Amendment now before the House must first be disposed of.
    MR. SHAWthought he and his lion. Friends would not make a very creditable exhibition if they went to a Division, because there were so few of them present. He was never opposed to asserting a principle, even in the Division Lobby; but he thought there were reasons on the present occasion why such a step was unnecessary. The Leader of the House had acted very fairly towards his hon. Friend (the O'Conor Don), who had to introduce a Bill of great importance—the University Bill—and had promised to give him facilities for introducing that measure, if he could not otherwise bring it forward; and he himself was not without hope that the Government, when they heard those propositions, would themselves adopt the measure, and pass it through the House. Under such circumstances, he thought his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) would be acting wisely in not pressing this matter to a Division.
    MAJOR NOLANremarked, that he did not expect to get much support in the Lobby that night; but he thought

    145
    it would pave the way to a better division on the Report at a later time. But as his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw) had stated some very excellent reasons for allowing the Vote to pass on the present occasion, he would withdraw his opposition, although his own desire would be simply and quietly to divide on every occasion that this Vote was proposed.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £372,088, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for Stationery, Printing, and Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for the two Houses of Parliament, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Stationery Office, and the cost of Stationery Office Publications, and of the Gazette Offices; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including a Grant in Aid of the publication of Parliamentary Debates."—(Sir Patrick O'Brien.)
    MR. BOURKEregretted that he was not in the House when the hon. Baronet first spoke; but he gathered, from what he had been told, that the hon. Baronet complained that Papers from the Foreign Office were given to members of the Press before they were distributed to Members of the House. He could only reply that he knew of no case where such a thing had occurred. On the contrary, he took the greatest care that no Papers of any kind should be communicated from the Foreign Office to the Press before they had been communicated to Parliament. As the Committee must be well aware, there had been many occasions when the Press had been extremely anxious to obtain copies of Parliamentary documents; but he had invariably refused to publish them, or to give them in any way to the Press, not merely until the Papers had been communicated, but until they had been communicated to Members. Supposing the case, for instance, of a Paper printed that night, which would be in the hands of Members to-morrow morning, he had not even then communicated it to the Press, until he had made absolutely certain there was no doubt it would be in the hands of Members the next morning.
    146
    That was the rule, and he thought if the hon. Baronet would make further inquiries he would find that that rule was adhered to.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENreplied, that his complaint had not been fully understood. Speaking for other hon. Members besides himself, he might say that that to which they objected was the fact that they did not receive Papers connected with the Eastern Question till two days after they had appeared in the morning papers. He did not say this was the fault of the Foreign Office; but he did think that they were to blame for the fact that other persons, not Members of either House of Parliament, received these Papers, and knew what they contained, before they were known to the Members of either House. For that reason, he ventured to intervene; and though he did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, he could not at all admit the accuracy of the statement of the hon. Gentleman as to the practice of his Office.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONfound great delay in communicating the despatches published in The Gazette. There were some from the Cape published in March, which had not yet been sent to hon. Members, and, as a consequence, those of them who wished to follow the progress of the war, for instance, in South Africa, had great difficulty in doing so. He would, therefore, make the suggestion to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as he had already suggested to the Secretary of State for War, that the Supplement to The London Gazette, which was always published as a separate paper, should be laid on the Table of the House pro formâ on the evening of publication, and then the Supplement could be circulated from the Vote Office. By that means, every Member would have an official copy of these important and interesting despatches in his possession, could follow the steps of the war, and could be ready at any time to take up the topic, instead of receiving these Papers once a month in a Blue Book, when they could be of no possible use. These Gazettes would cost nothing, excepting the paper, for the type was already set up, and the shape of The Gazette made them quite suitable for delivery to Members.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONpromised to consider the question, al-

    147
    though the matter did not arise within, and was not connected with, his Department.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURearnestly hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would continue to provide for The Army and Navy Lists being published under authority, and that these Lists would be kept better filled with information about the Naval and Military Services. He approved very highly of the excellent table in connection with the cost of stationery and printing done for the various branches of the Civil and Military Services. It was the best mode they had of keeping the expenditure of the Departments under control; and though it was clumsily prepared, and did not arrange the items under the heads in which they appeared in the Estimates, still it did enable hon. Members to compare the sums spent with the sums voted, and he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would continue to give the matter his attention. So far from discontinuing the list, the Secretary to the Treasury would do good service by endeavouring to make it approach more nearly to perfection by separating the cost of stationery from that of printing, and by an improved arrangement of the figures to connect the amounts with those in the audited accounts. He hoped in future the table would be published in the Appropriation Account, and they would then be able to compare the items in detail with the totals now shown in lump sums. He also asked why The Army List did not appear among the allowances hitherto given for compilation?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he could not explain the matter at that moment; but he would do so on the Report. With regard to the table, he was not very much encouraged to give it by the reception he had met with in that respect hitherto; but he certainly did not intend to discontinue it.
    MR. WHITWELLpointed out that although there was a Supplemental Vote in the spring, and although the changes at the Post Office had relieved that Department to some extent, yet there was again an increase in the charges of £4,000. He was quite sure his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would pay particular attention to this subject, and
    148
    the Department would certainly prove a great friend to the Treasury. He thoroughly approved of the present management of the prisons; but he should like to know whether the Stationery Department had charge of the printing in the prisons, or whether that expenditure was now conducted by and included in the cost of that Department? Another matter to which he wished to call attention was the management of The London Gazette. It appeared at the present time to be yielding a considerable profit to the Treasury; but he believed it would be extremely advantageous if the price of that publication were considerably reduced and the circulation largely increased. One portion of the paper which conduced largely to the profit was the advertisements; and, of course, the more extensively the paper was circulated the greater would be the income for advertisements, and the greater the profit, like all other undertakings of a similar kind, from the sale. In addition, as suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend, they would have the benefit that the public announcements in The Gazette would be more widely circulated and more easily got at by those who were interested in them.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONpromised that attention should be given to these suggestions; but, at the same time, begged to point out that there was at the present time a very considerable profit from the advertisements in The Gazette, amounting last year to £31,214, which was certainly a considerable sum.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYhoped something would also be done to reduce the price of the advertisements in The Gazette, which, at the present time, was a very serious tax on the mercantile community, who were obliged to put certain advertisements in the paper.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKthought a more reasonable price ought certainly to be asked for these advertisements. He found under letter J. that printing, binding, &c. had fallen off by £15,000. He wished to know the reason for that? Paper, also, cost £92,000. Was that bought by contract, or was it ordered from some person as a matter of course? He hoped they did not pay very much for the paper in the Library, for it was not very grand, and the pens were very bad, and the ink was something abominable. It stuck, and would not write.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that the paper was bought by contract.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked if the contract extended over several years?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, these details did not belong to his particular Department, and he could not give the actual details of that particular contract; but there was a saving under the contract, as made by the Stationery Office, and, comparing the work done in previous years and the prices then paid with the present Estimate, there was a saving of several thousands of pounds.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKrepeated his question as to the decrease in the Vote under the letter J.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsupposed that it arose from the fact that there had been less printing required in this year, as compared with last, for the prices paid for the work were the same, although the contract was now under consideration.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (7.) £19,386, to complete the sum for the Woods, Forests, &c. Office.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, some observations were made on this Vote about the management of Windsor Park, when it was previously before the Committee, and he now wished to ask whether the remarks then made had received consideration? Windsor Park ought certainly to be brought under public management as the far more economical way.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreplied, that he could only repeat what he said on the former occasion, that any alteration in the manner of managing the Park must be made by legislation. At the time when the Civil List was agreed to, this particular park was placed among the appanages of the Crown, on the condition that the revenue after the expenses had been paid should go into the Exchequer. He might remind the Committee that a great part of the expenditure on the Park was for the benefit of the public, who derived great enjoyment from its use. The real amount spent, after deducting what the maintenance of the roads, the lodges, &c., cost, was really nothing considerable. Something like £11,000 was paid for the maintenance of the roads and lodges, and £5,000 for
    150
    the lawns and grass, leaving only a very small sum for the rest of the 1,400 acres.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpointed out that, so far from there being any revenue from the Park, there was a deficit. Undoubtedly, any change that was made must be made by legislation, and that was why he and his Friends had not sought to call attention to the matter by Divisions; but he would urge the Government to consider whether such legislation ought not to take place. In this case they knew nothing of the expenditure. They only knew that every year there was an extraordinary deficit on Windsor Forest, which they were called upon to vote, without knowing at all how it was made up or why it arose.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8.) £33,684, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcalled attention to the large increase which had taken place within the past two years in the Vote for the Office of the Chief Commissioner of Works. Of course, the charges for an Establishment of this kind might be expected to vary; but they had already swelled up to an extent far beyond what appeared to be requisite for the additional work known to have been imposed on the Department. He again had to make complaints of the confused way in which these accounts were presented to Parliament, and now they found an increase of nearly 25 per cent in one small Department, which, remembering the dissatisfaction already existing in the minds of many hon. Members, could not be expected to pass without notice. The expenditure ought to be put more clearly before the Committee, so that they could understand the reason for these increases without running into mistakes.
    MR. GERARD NOELexplained that during the last few years several now Departments had been thrown on the Office of Works, such as the Inland Revenue, the Embassy and Consular Buildings abroad, and the Customs Departments.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwas at a loss to understand how that could increase the expenses in the Office to anything in the actual proportion that had taken place. A controlling Office like this ought to be able to take

    151
    over duties without any such augmentation, nor of the kind as now shown. These duties, of course, might have increased the Vote for Public Buildings, but not necessarily the Office expenses. Besides, he believed these charges were first imposed in 1877–8, so that there was ground for a fair comparison, as these Revenue buildings were then included in the Estimates of this Office.
    MR. GERARD NOELexplained that last year the addition of the Customs Department involved the employment of a number of additional officers, and a surveyor to the Embassy and Consular Buildings had been appointed, whose salary was £1,000 a-year, besides his expenses.
    Vote agreed to.
    (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £19,700, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st of March 1880, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
    MR. RYLANDS MR. RYLANDS moved the reduction of the Vote by £5,000, on the broad ground that he protested against it altogether, and wished to see it struck off the Estimates. They also had £10,000 charged on the Consolidated Fund in addition, making £25,000 voted annually for Secret Service money. The greater part of it, lie believed, was spent by the Foreign Office, although a certain amount was spent by the Colonial Office. He had called attention, in former years, to the way in which this fund was misappropriated, by being applied to purposes not contemplated by Parliament at the time the money was voted. In consequence, some of the abuses which then existed had been removed; but still he was by no means prepared to admit that this fund was now expended in an entirely satisfactory manner. In fact, it was utterly impossible for the Government to justify an expenditure of £20,000 a-year on Secret Service. The sum asked was either very much too much, or very much too small. He had a very strong opinion that part of it was spent in grants to widows of Consuls. [Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON dissented.] The hon. Gentleman, he saw, shook his head; but, then, that hon. Gentleman knew no more of the expenditure than he (Mr. Rylands) did. Indeed, if the Secretary to the
    152
    Treasury would give the Committee the assurance of his word, on which they all placed the greatest reliance, that he knew all about the expenditure of this money, and that, as a public man and an officer of the Crown, he was satisfied with the expenditure, he would withdraw his Amendment. But he ventured to say that not only did the Financial Secretary not know, but the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did not know, anything about it; for, as they heard some time ago, it was only the Permanent Under Secretary who was permitted to know what became of the money. That had been proved in that House some years ago, when it was said that a certain sum of money had been spent for a certain purpose, for the then Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs got up and denied it. It was afterwards proved to be a true statement, and then it was discovered that the Under Secretary of State denied that it had been spent, because he had been told to deny it, and that all the time he knew nothing whatever of the matter. He (Mr. Rylands) did not think it was proper for the Committee to be asked to vote these sums without some explanation of them being given; certainly, payments to widows of Consuls had been made out of this fund, which was not right, for a Vote was already made for that purpose, and it should not be secretly increased in this way without the knowledge of the House. If, however, the money was really spent in bribing people at foreign Courts to bring information to our Ambassadors, then he could only say that it was a very contemptible method of employing the public money. For many years past, at any rate, it had not succeeded; for he did not believe there was a single instance in which the Government had obtained priority of information by this Secret Service money. It was notorious that the Government were the last persons to learn what was happening, and very often, indeed, the Government did not inform themselves of what appeared in the papers, in order that when questioned they might answer that they knew nothing about any such statements. Possibly, there might have been a time when there was some advantage gained from Secret Service money; but it now seemed to him entirely out of date.

    153
    Another objection he had to the Vote was that the Government were asking for more than they knew they would require. For several years past, unless he was mistaken, they had only spent about £13,000, and the balance had been returned into the Treasury. There was a great disadvantage in giving Votes for more money than might reasonably be expected to be required. The Foreign Office should not put down a sum which there was no reasonable probability would be wanted. Even, therefore, if this reduction of the Vote were assented to, the amount voted would be in excess of what had been required for the last few years.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum not exceeding £14,100 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that, although he was amused, as he generally was on the discussion of this Vote, he could not sympathize with the ingenious attempt of his hon. Friend to extract from him information which, if given, would practically destroy the Vote. If he possessed all the information on this subject that would enable him to answer the challenge that had been made to him, he would be the last man to acknowledge that he was so, and to testify it by making certain statements to the Committee. The justification he had to offer for the Vote was the justification which had been offered by every Secretary to the Treasury who had gone before him—that these amounts were distributed to the different Departments, and that the head of the Department was responsible for the proper administration of it. Whatever might have been the practice in times past, he could renew the assurance that had been given for the last two or three years, that none of the money was now employed in supplementing the salaries of officers abroad or in this country. The hon. Gentleman would see that the amount had been slightly reduced from what it had been in previous years; and he could assure the Committee that it was his anxious wish to reduce this Vote to the lowest amount at which it could possibly be put, taking a fair average. Although he admitted the amount ex-
    154
    pended had not come up to the grant in recent years, the variation had not been such as to justify a large variation. He thought the Vote did justify the reduction he had made; and, without claiming the possession of any knowledge, and without revealing any secrets, he did think that this particular amount would be sufficient.
    SIR ANDBEW LUSKwas altogether dissatisfied with this Vote. When he first knew it, 14 years ago, it stood at £30,000. After a great deal of talking, he and his Friends brought it down to £25,000; and now it had dropped still lower, to £23,000. Last year there was a good deal of excitement in Europe, and, he supposed, a great deal of Secret Service money was spent; and, therefore, he should like to know how it was that a still further reduction was made? They were told, too, that only £13,000 was spent; and, therefore, he did not see why the Government should ask for £23,000. By perseverance they had already considerably reduced the Vote, and he did not see why it should not come down still further.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEpointed out, that the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was that the money was not spent, and, therefore, ought not to be asked for. As a mere matter of scientific administration, if the full sum were never required, the Vote should be put at a lower sum. In the present state of Europe, if ever there was a year when they might have expected that all the money voted would have been required, it would have been last year; yet, even in that year, they found that the expenditure had fallen short by some £10,000. Therefore, it would be far more scientific to take a lower sum. His hon. Friend (Mr. Rylands) had already reduced this Vote by some £6,000 or £7,000, and on the principle on which half the fines were given to the informer, he ought to have had a present from the Government of some £3,000 or £4,000.
    MR. GOLDNEYreminded the Committee that the extension of telegraphic communication made the transmission of intelligence more expensive than formerly. It would certainly be exceedingly unwise to cut down the Vote in such a manner that in a moment of pressure there might not be enough required to meet an emergency.
    Mr. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he regarded it as a good sign that the consciences of English Members were being stirred on the question of the Secret Service money. If they were as well acquainted as he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was with Irish affairs, they would, at least, know why so large an expenditure was necessary, though they could not justify it. They frequently heard that the Irish were disloyal; but he supposed few people were aware that a portion of this Secret Service money was spent in manufacturing disloyalty in Ireland. The reason why some of the Irish Members had not called the attention of the House to the matter this year was because they had frequently done so before with such very little effect that they had almost sunk into the slough of despair. The time had arrived, however, for the beginning of hope, when they saw the consciences of English Members being awakened. There could be no doubt that this was the most objectionable Vote in the whole Estimates. Time after time explanations had been demanded of the Vote, and they had never been given by anyone who occupied the position of Secretary to the Treasury. As one who was acquainted with the employment of some of this money in Ireland, as he had seen the facts revealed in police courts in Ireland, when political prisoners were being tried, he felt it his duty to protest against the money being voted in the absence of satisfactory explanations.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 155: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 87.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,246, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue.
    SIR ANDREW LUSK SIR ANDREW LUSK moved the reduction of the Vote by £218, being the estimate of amount contributed in Scotland for Queen's Plates. He had moved this over and over again for the
    156
    last 10 or 15 years. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, the Committee surely did not want a man to fall away as he grew older. He should have thought the House of Commons was old enough to set its face against Queen's Plates, or anything of the kind. In his opinion, they ought not to countenance such sports. The public and the people of Scotland were alive to these things, and, as a rule, did not patronize such folly. If the money had been spent to encourage the breeding of good farm-horses, he would not have had a word to say. But he was sure if the Committee could see, as he had often to see in the course of his magisterial experience, the troubles, and difficulties, and evils which came from racing, they would put their faces against any Votes of this sort. They had already the best shorthorns and the best sheep in the world without any assistance from the State. The State gave no prizes for reaping machines, and he did not see why it should offer prizes for racing. Why should they be asked to promote racing, which led to so much evil? He did manage to get the Vote done away with some years ago; but some Scotch Members were weak in the knees, and were so afraid of losing ground with their constituents that they got it restored. What was the good of a race-horse? For his part, he did not see the use of improving the breed of this kind of animal, because, after all, a race-horse was only an exaggerated greyhound. He regarded it as of no use whatever. Bringing the matter to the test of utility, what was the use of racing? He hoped hon. Members who had had experience of that gentlemanly pastime would tell him. Let them produce some tangible and good results from the spending of the money, and he might be induced to alter his opinion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,028, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."—(Sir Andrew Lusk.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he confessed that while the con-

    157
    sistency of the hon. Baronet (Sir Andrew Lusk) was beyond doubt, the same could not be said of some of the Scotch Members. The House had had a large experience with regard to their wishes. In 1870 the Vote was omitted altogether; but in 1872 the Scotch Members, by a majority, requested that it might be again put upon the Estimates. From that time, as they had not expressed any wish to have it removed, he inferred that they were satisfied that it should be there. He was not prepared, at a moment's notice, to discuss the precise anatomical distinction between a race-horse and a greyhound, nor did he say that this particular Vote did immensely improve the breed of horses; but the object with which it was originally given was for the purpose of improving the breed of horses, encouraging the best class of horse in the country, and thus improving the breed. He would rather leave it to hon. Members for Scotland to decide whether the Vote should be continued; whether they had or had not changed the opinion which during the last few years they expressed; whether, in other words, they wished to see Scotland with a Vote for that particular purpose. He had always understood that the Vote was acceptable in Ireland, as it was in England; and he believed, in spite of what the hon. Baronet had said, that the Scotch Members generally did not desire that their country should be in an exceptional position.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he was quite ready to bear willing testimony to the desire of the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) to look after the morality, not only of the people of England, but of the people of his native country; but he thought it was a pity to take up the time of the House in considering mere cheeseparing economies, and in discussing such comparatively small matters. For his (Mr. Barclay's) own part, horse-racing was rather contrary to his taste; but, nevertheless, he believed that the people of Scotland, if polled, would be found to be in favour of the granting of these Queen's Plates. He knew, at least, one Northern town in which this question decided the fate of a municipal election. The question arose as to whether the Town Council of that particular place should grant the use of the links for the purpose of horse-racing,
    158
    and those who were in favour of horse-racing carried the day by a large majority. The people liked to have a holiday. He did not say that, if the thing were to be done anew, this particular sum ought to be devoted to this particular purpose. No doubt, the money might flow into more useful channels; but, seeing that it had been devoted for a specific object, he did not think it ought to be cut off on the present occasion. Seeing, too, that a still larger portion of the public money was voted for a similar purpose to England, he thought that the hon. Baronet should endeavour to deal with the latter portion of the United Kingdom before attempting to deal with Scotland or with Ireland.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, the Scotch Members found, after the Vote had been removed, that their constituents were not satisfied that the Votes should be continued to Ireland. They thought, if money was voted to Ireland, that it should be voted to Scotland also. It was a very small Vote; and although he did not know that it did a great deal of good in the way of improving the breed of horses in Scotland, he was satisfied that it was a popular one, and he hoped it would be continued.
    MR. RAMSAY, who rose amid considerable interruption, said, hon. Gentlemen evidently did not wish to hear a single word against the Vote, because they were so fond of racing. The hon. Baronet the Member for Peebleshire (Sir Graham Montgomery) spoke about improving the breed of horses; but he (Mr. Ramsay) did not know any class of Scotchmen who took any interest in the breeding of race-horses, except those who were interested in the Turf, and their number was very limited. If it had been a proposal to encourage and improve the breed of farmstead horses, such as the Clydesdale, he could have understood it; but there was no advantage to the public generally in improving the breed of race-horses. If the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) went to a Division, he should support him.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 30; Noes 107: Majority 77.—(Div. List, No. 88.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £10,783, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland, and certain Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURcalled the attention of the Committee to the facts that, while Scotland had to contribute largely in the form of taxes to the construction and repair of harbours in the United Kingdom, and that while the sum of between £40,000 and £50,000 was at present being spent upon Dover Harbour alone, the amount expended on the harbours of Scotland amounted only to the miserable sum of £3,000, notwithstanding that these Scotch harbours were a source of revenue to the extent of £7,000 a-year from the tax on barrels of herrings. His object in doing so was to point out that in the distribution of funds raised by Imperial taxes on all classes of the Kingdom, in the mode in which this money was voted for harbour purposes, great favouritism was shown in respect of England and Ireland, as compared with Scotland; and what was far more objectionable was that, after all, the country had no security that any efficient harbours would be constructed at all. He intended to make use of every opportunity which presented itself to bring this subject before Her Majesty's Government, not with the view of preventing the necessary outlay of money upon harbours, so urgently needed along our coasts, especially on the Scotch North-east coast, but in order to urge upon them the necessity of ascertaining how far harbours in various parts of the Kingdom could be designed and perfected by means of investigations into the extensive failures in the past. In foreign countries harbours had been constructed on good designs, and completed in an admirable manner; but, as he had continually impressed upon the Government, many of the harbours in Scotland, as well as in England and Ireland, were utter failures. He trusted that the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be directed to this question by the Secretary to the Treasury, with a view to instituting inquiries
    160
    into the designs and construction of the most important harbours at home and abroad, as to the causes of success or failure, in the hope that the knowledge thereby collected would be useful in making this expenditure of some use to the country; otherwise, he should certainly ask that this Vote should be abolished. If it was in his power to move to increase the Vote to Scotland to £20,000, and if he knew that the engineers could design harbours likely to be useful, he would do so; but that was impossible. The Rules of the House prevented the Motion of increase, and the failures in harbour works in the past satisfied him that any further expenditure would be throwing good money after bad; and he must, therefore, remain content with raising his voice against expending money to no useful purpose.
    MR. MARK STEWARTasked if in the charges for the Salmon Fisheries Commission the Solway salmon fishing was included, or did that merely refer to sea fisheries?
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that on the last occasion, when he had the opportunity, he supported the claims of Scotland; and though he rose on the present occasion to move a reduction in this Vote, he was by no means really hostile to the expenditure of the money mentioned under this head. However, following the example of the Scotch Members who the other day moved the reduction of the English Vote under the Poor Law Estimate, because there was not enough on the same head laid out in Scotland, he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000, inasmuch as if Ireland was being dealt with justly, Scotland was being dealt with at a most extravagant rate. The fact was, that on this Vote he wished to draw attention to the manner in which the Scotch fisheries were subsidized, and their competition with the Irish fisheries facilitated unfairly, by means of the public money. There was no doubt that the reason why this very much larger sum was demanded for Scotland was that the fisheries in that country were still an especial care of the Government; while, in Ireland, the fisheries were scandalously neglected. The result of that was that in all the markets of the world the fisheries of Scotland were able, thus subsidized and protected by the Government, to beat

    161
    the Irish fisheries. Without going to the length of Protectionism, he believed that all the fisheries of the country ought, as far as possible, to be the object of especial care on the part of the Government; and had there been anything like a fair distribution of this care between Scotland and Ireland, he would have been the very last to say a word against the assistance given to the Scotch fisheries, because he believed that the development of the fisheries in Ireland and Scotland, so far as it could be aided by inspection and judicious direction, was an object eminently worthy of the fostering care of Parliament. As had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) on a previous occasion—
    "A great naval Empire ought to seek to foster the fisheries about its coasts, because a race of hardy fishermen would he amongst the best recruits for the Naval Service."
    But, besides that, the disparagement of the Irish fisheries deprived the country of a source of wealth. Not many years ago 120,000 people found a livelihood in the fisheries of Ireland. But the trade had since suffered terribly, and the Government continued steadily advancing money to its Scotch rivals and competitors, whom they directly subsidized by supplying the cost of branding, as well as the machinery necessary for that purpose, although the trade had developed to such an extent that the expenses of branding could now be paid out of the fees charged to the fishermen. Why was not a sufficiently large sum Voted to provide branding establishments in Ireland? He had no doubt whatever, that if that were granted, the same results would follow in Ireland as in Scotland, and that the expense would be fully borne by the foes paid by Irish fishermen and persons engaged in the fishing trade. It was useless to say that this Vote did not give a direct and unfair advantage to one set of fishermen over another; for it was very well known that in the markets of the Continent—where there was a great prejudice in favour of Governmentalism, and where our laisser faire system was not understood—if two barrels of herrings, one Scotch and the other Irish, were for sale, nine out of ten buyers would choose the former, because it had upon it a Government brand, notwithstanding that the herrings in the other might be of as
    162
    good quality. If branding was necessary in Scotland, it was also necessary in Ireland; and he thought that the Scotch Members should, therefore, give some pledge that they would aid the Irish in their endeavour to obtain a system similar to their own. His Motion for the reduction of the Vote was only technical, and intended to raise this point in a manner by no means hostile to the people of Scotland. So far from the latter being the case, he believed the money was well laid out, and contended only that the same system should be extended to Ireland. Not only ought Scotchmen, but Englishmen, to have an interest in promoting the welfare of the Irish fishermen, who had never been accused of giving any trouble by their political proclivities. No trade in. Ireland had suffered more terribly than the fishing trade; still, he believed that no trade could be more easily resuscitated if proper care were bestowed upon it; and with that view, he trusted that the Committee would give some indication of their opinions and put a little gentle pressure upon the Government. In order to bring about the desired improvement, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,783, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and certain Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    LORD ELCHOsaid, there was no doubt that immense benefit had been derived in Scotland from the grant of £3,000 for quays and harbours, and he agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) in thinking that it would be better that a larger sum should be granted for those purposes. Many persons in Scotland were anxious to have harbours of their own; there was, however, great difficulty in their getting loans for that purpose, and he thought it would be good policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government to increase the present grant. But his object in rising was to point out the present condition of the harbour of Dunbar in his own county. There were, in fact, two harbours at Dunbar—one

    163
    formed by the old sea wall, the other a new and well-constructed work, joined to it at an expense, he believed, of £50,000 or £60,000. Now, the storms of this and the previous year had knocked great holes in the walls of both the old and the new harbours, and rendered the place utterly worthless for the security of the 600 or 1,000 boats which, when the season came on, were sometimes to be seen there. According to the statement of the engineer, the harbour could only be entered in calms and with a steady sea. He (Lord Elcho) understood that but a small sum was necessary to place it in a state of repair; and he, therefore, thought it would be wise to restore it before it got into a worse condition. If, as he was informed, £2,000 or £3,000 would be sufficient for this purpose, he believed the Government would be showing wise economy in spending that sum of money, and he looked with satisfaction upon the fact that the engineer of the Fishery Board had been ordered to report upon the state of the harbour as an indication that the Government would not allow that, to his mind, well-built structure, which, as he had said, had cost the country already £50,000 or £60,000, to crumble away.
    MR. RAMSAYagreed that the case of the harbour of Dunbar, described by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), was one that ought to be specially considered. His object, however, in rising was to point out that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was, to some extent, under a misapprehension in using the term "subsidy" with reference to this particular Vote. The sum of £5,000, by which he wished the Vote to be reduced, was more than the sum asked to be voted, so far as the Treasury was concerned, the receipts for branding, of which the hon. Member complained, being £7,610, as against £5,430, the amount of the grant; so that the branding, instead of being a cost to the country, was actually a source of profit. When, therefore, matters arrived at that promising state in Ireland, the Government would have no difficulty in appointing persons to brand herrings there in the same way as in Scotland. He believed, however, the hon. Member would find that the larger fish-curers in Scotland were not so much
    164
    in favour of the system of branding as had been supposed. If the grant were really in the nature of a subsidy, he thought that the Scotch Members would be quite willing that it should be withdrawn; but it was not so, and it was simply an old custom which had grown up, which those who were engaged in the trade to a small extent desired to have perpetuated, because at a distant period it had given and was supposed yet would give them an advantage in foreign markets, where the brand was regarded as a trademark and as a guarantee of quality, and therefore enabled them to sell their goods to better advantage. With regard to the unequal distribution of the grants of various kinds which appeared in the Estimates, he would suggest that the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) should instruct one of the clerks at the Treasury to make out a list of the sums voted from the Treasury for local purposes in each of the three Kingdoms. If that was done, he believed it would be found that the amounts voted for Scotland were not at all equal in proportion to the amounts expended in Ireland and England, whether viewed with reference to the population or taxation in the respective countries. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the people of Scotland, collectively, paid a greater sum into the Treasury than the people of Ireland, and if the plan he had suggested were adopted of furnishing the details of the distribution of the grants, it would be seen that the people of Scotland had just cause of complaint that they were treated differently from the inhabitants of the other portions of the Kingdom.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the argument used by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) in urging the Government to vote more money for Dunbar was the most remarkable he had ever heard. The sum of £3,000 annually was not put into the Estimates by the Government of their own accord; but it was under the provisions of a very old Act of Parliament, and the money was intended to be applied to the repair of harbours throughout Scotland. The noble Lord told them that Dunbar had already received no less than £50,000 or £60,000 out of that annual grant,
    LORD ELCHOobserved, that he had said nothing of the kind. The money spent in the construction of the new harbour at Dunbar had nothing to do with the £3,000 annual grant.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONreplied that it came to much the same thing, as it was all public money; and because £50,000 had been granted for the local benefit of Dunbar, that scarcely justified them in asking for more. He (Sir Alexander Gordon) lived on a part of the coast very much exposed to the North Sea, and thickly populated by fishermen. In the North, they built harbours with their own money, and did not come to the Government for assistance. The noble Lord would, in his (Sir Alexander Gordon's) opinion, act wisely in encouraging the people of Dunbar to do the same. If the local proprietors came forward as liberally in the South of Scotland, the noble Lord would find that Dunbar harbour would soon be repaired. In regard to the branding question, if the fishermen of the West Coast of Ireland showed the same energy as the people in the North of Scotland, they would soon establish their fishing, and then the Government grant would come to them, instead of, as at present, the fishing coming to the Government.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he trusted the different parts of the United Kingdom would not be brought into rivalry with each other as to their share of the public grants, but that each case as it arose would be dealt with in accordance with the necessity of the case. It would be a very unfortunate state of things if they were obliged to measure out so many pounds or half-crowns to Scotland when she did not want them, merely because so much money had been voted to England or Ireland. With regard to the proper investment of money in harbour works, he believed that the investigation suggested by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour) might be very usefully and properly carried out; but this particular expenditure of £3,000 was incurred under an old Act of Parliament as mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), and was renewed annually, for the purpose of repairing the harbours in Scotland. It was intended
    166
    to apply a portion of this amount to the harbour of Burnmouth, a place where £2,000 had already been raised by the local authorities for that purpose, and in such a case as that, where the people of the locality desired to improve their harbour and came forward with a considerable portion of the money required, he thought the grant might very properly be made. The money was sometimes given to one part of Scotland and sometimes to another. As to Dunbar, he agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), that when so large a sum of public money had been spent on that harbour, it would be false economy to let it go to ruin for the want of £2,000 or £3,000; therefore, since the matter had fallen under his notice, he had directed a Report to be drawn up with a view to ascertain in what way the necessary repairs could be met. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) relating to branding, which was really the subject of the discussion, he would point out that the sum expended in branding was far more than covered by the amount received in foes under that system. He should like the Committee, also, to remember that it was not in every case that that system would meet with favour, supposing it were applied, because, as had often been pointed out, it was only in the case of the small fish-curers that it was supposed to be of great assistance, and it was on that account alone that he thought the Scotch Members and the Scotch people generally would regret to see the branding done away with. He was glad that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had drawn attention to the discussion of last year, because it gave him (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) an opportunity of pointing out that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had, on that occasion, deprecated the taking from Scotland of a Vote simply because another part of the Kingdom did not get it. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would agree to the continuance of the Vote, in the belief that it was acceptable to the people of Scotland, and that it really did some good. He would venture to suggest, with regard to the sum of £3,000 expended on piers and harbours, that although it was small, it might still be very serviceable; and wherever it was shown

    167
    that local effort in Scotland was really being brought to bear upon a harbour with a view to its improvement, the Treasury would be prepared fairly to consider the question whether grants in aid of such efforts could not be made independently of this particular grant.
    MR. WHITWELLhoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would not be pressed, because the amount of the grant was exceeded by the credit received for fees. There could not be a better appropriation of public money than that which went to promote large industries, such as were dealt with by the Vote. For that reason, he did not think the Committee should examine too closely whether the advantage gained was equal to the expenditure. With regard to the administration of the Fishery Board, he was compelled to offer some criticism upon that subject, because he found that, at present, considerable sums of money were given to the captains of Her Majesty's ships for doing what he considered to be no more than their duty. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, when Secretary to the Treasury, had listened to what was stated with reference to this, and he (Mr. Whitwell) had trusted that when he became Administrator of Naval Affairs, he would enable the Vote to be so far economized, that the allowance to the officers of Her Majesty's ships should cease. It would be observed that the captain of the Jackal received £100, and the captain of another of our gunboats £50, in addition to their pay. He could not understand wiry officers, who were only doing their duty, should receive additional payment. If they were not sufficiently paid for their services in the Navy, they ought to be paid out of the Admiralty Department, and not become a charge upon the Fishery Board. Again, he was aware that they had on duty a cutter which cost £2,480 a-year, which was specially charged upon the Service, for the protection of the fisheries against French and other intrusion; but the employment of vessels for that purpose seemed to him to be fairly chargeable upon the Admiralty Department. If this Fishery Board was to be an effective Board, it must be efficient; but was that the case? He found that the secretary and six or seven clerks divided their services be-
    168
    tween the Fishery Board and the National Board of Manufactures. He had never heard of such a system as that, under which the officials received half of their salaries from one branch of the Service and the rest from another. It would surely be better that the gentlemen employed should devote the whole of their attention to the fisheries. The system appeared, for the reasons he had given, to require re-consideration.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYdid not know that he would suggest to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that he should divide the Committee. He had, however, done wisely in calling attention to the subject of branding in Scotland, although in his (Mr. O'Shaughnessy's) opinion, the manner in which it had been done would sufficiently impress the House with the necessity of adopting a similar measure with regard to the Irish fisheries. But the House would find before long, when the Irish Party was, as it very soon would be, strengthened, that this and kindred matters would be brought forward affirmatively, and not in an incidental manner. It was not denied by any of the Scotch Members present that the system of branding had done an immense deal of good to the Scotch fish trade; indeed, according to the expression of many of them, he gathered that it had, to a great extent, created that trade. It had, at least, done a great deal to augment and create the foreign fish trade of Scotland, and probably many of the large houses which had reached their present position by means of that system now thought very little about it. But there were small houses, which the system would help to attain a good position, and whose goods were tested by their enjoying a Government brand. It was the very thing for a fishing community, whose interests were small, and where it was desirable to enlarge them. The system was perfectly adapted to enable the small fisheries in Ireland to realize the position obtained by the Scotch by reason of this Government Vote. From the statements of the Scotch Members, it was evident that the small fisheries had achieved their present position largely by the possession of this Government test of the quality of their goods. For these reasons, he thought that similar advantages ought to be obtained for Ireland. Hon. Members had

    169
    been told that this outlay was repaid from the fees; but that had not always been the case. In the same manner, the progress made in Ireland towards recouping the cost of branding would be at first gradual. Under these circumstances, while he suggested to his hon. Friend not to insist upon a division, he would be happy to support him when the matter came affirmatively before the House.
    LORD ELCHO, as a member both of the Fishery Board and the Board of Manufactures, wished to bear his testimony to the thorough efficiency of the work done by the staff of the two Departments. He wished also to say a word with reference to what the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) had said as to the fishermen of that part of the country which he (Lord Elcho) had the honour to represent not being men of energy and enterprize, when contrasting the fishermen of the North with the fishermen of the South. [Sir ALEXANDER GORDON: I spoke of the proprietors.] He wished to state as regarded the harbour which his hon. and gallant Friend fell foul of, the harbour of Dunbar, that it was treated exceptionally, being dealt with by a special grant, and he was glad to have heard the Secretary to the Treasury express the opinion that it would be a false economy to allow that harbour, after the money which had been expended upon it, to crumble away. But as regarded the proprietors, or fishermen, or whatever the hon. and gallant Member choose to call them—[Sir ALEXANDER GORDON: Proprietors.]—he desired to state what had recently been done in regard to that matter at the small fishing village of Cockenzie, near Prestonpans; the fishermen had, for a considerable time, subscribed 6d. per boat, and had collected from £1,500 to £2,000. It was true that they had been aided by the proprietors on that coast; but the result was that without coming to the public for money, a harbour was being constructed by the engineers to the Board. On the other hand, the people of Burnmouth, Wick, and other places, would have liked to receive an advance from Government, but the answer given was, that so much money had been spent of late in the South of Scotland, that the next grant must go to the North.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, or the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, to explain what the Fishery Board did. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Lord would tell them how many meetings of the Board he had attended, and what was the nature of the business that had been transacted by them during the last 12 months? The Board, so far as he (Mr. J. W. Barclay) could understand, simply existed in the secretary and other officials. With respect to the question of branding, instead of being any advantage, he believed that for many years past it had only the effect of keeping down the quality and character of the herrings cured on the East Coast of Scotland, and he was sure that the sooner it was abolished the better it would be for the herring fishing in Scotland. He had no doubt, also, that this grant of £3,000 ought to be withdrawn, because, so far as they could learn, it had been productive of very little good in the construction of harbours in Scotland, and the money had been practically thrown away. It would be very desirable if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would inform the Committee what were the duties which the Admiralty cruisers had to discharge. It was popularly understood that the sum given out of this Vote to the masters of those vessels was paid to them for the purpose of encouraging them to assist fishing-boats when in distress, and in the recovery of their nets after a storm. He was led to understand that the masters of these vessels had been applied to for assistance for the latter purpose and had declined to give it, on the ground that it formed no part of their duties. He should like to know what were the orders and instructions which were given to the commanders of the Admiralty vessels with respect to giving assistance to the fishermen?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, the duties of the Fishery Board might be defined in this way. They had to look after the branding of the herrings, to superintend the building of fishery harbours, to look after the marine police, the registration and numbering of the fishing boats, and the collection of marine statistics. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had really added to the Question asked by the

    171
    hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) with regard to the duties of the Government vessels and the salaries of their officers. Practically, these vessels were the police of the sea, and they were sent to the coasts of Scotland to protect the fishing vessels, and to keep order between the vessels of different nationalities. It was true that the captain of the Jackal received £100, in addition to his naval pay; but the hon. Member for Kendal would see that the onerous duties cast upon these officers made it desirable that some such addition should be made to their salaries. With regard to the Question which had been referred to by hon. Members respecting the harbour of Dunbar, he was endeavouring to obtain an accurate Report upon the damage done, in order that the case might be gone into in a scientific manner. Nothing had been decided as to what part of the money required for repairs should be advanced by the Treasury, or as to whether the people of Dunbar should be called upon to pay any sum towards the amount which might be found necessary for that purpose. The money could not come out of the £3,000 for the present year.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, with reference to the suggestion which he had thrown out for the consideration of the Secretary to the Treasury, it was to be regretted that the hon. Gentleman merely rose to deprecate the introduction of any comparisons that might be made by hon. Members between the respective parts of the Kingdom in the discussion of any particular Vote. He (Mr. Ramsay) agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it might be expedient that each particular Vote should be discussed on its own merits, without any reference to the assistance rendered in various parts of the Kingdom, and he believed this could be done if the Committee had accurate information as to the sums voted respectively for different parts of the Kingdom. But they had no such information, and the consequence was that there existed a diversity of opinion upon the subject between the Scotch and Irish Members. Scotch Members contended that England and Ireland got a larger amount from the Imperial Treasury for local purposes than was voted for Scotland either in proportion to the population or the amount of taxation, and that, he believed, could be demonstrated by the
    172
    Return which he had suggested should be prepared by the Treasury. They found it to be the case systematically, not in one but in every instance, that the people of Scotland received less for any particular purpose than the people of England or Ireland. And he reminded the Secretary to the Treasury that so long as the Government continued to ignore the right of the people of Scotland to be placed on an equality with England and Ireland in respect of these grants, so long would the hon. Baronet have those disagreeable discussions raised in Committee of Supply.
    MR. ORR-EWINGthought that hon. Members ought to be satisfied with the discussion that had taken place. He did not think that the remarks of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) were likely to tend to economy in the Public Expenditure. If they were going to maintain that because England was getting more than she ought, Scotland should be served in the same way, it would tend very much to extravagance.
    SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he was well acquainted with most of the harbours in Scotland, and could bear testimony to the value of the services of the masters of the cruisers, who were necessarily men of great ability, because they had to maintain what might be called the police of those fisheries. It must be borne in mind that there were something like 2,500 boats which fished within a space of 40 miles by 30 miles off the coast of Aberdeenshire, and they took out of that space more than the land-rental of the whole of that country; and from this it would be seen that the duties of the officers on board the cruisers employed there were of a very onerous kind. He would not have occupied the attention of the Committee had not the name of the Vigilant been referred to, for he held in his hand a note received that afternoon which had filled him with sincere sorrow. The letter told him of the death of the captain of that vessel (Captain Samuel Macdonald), who died suddenly off the coast of Sutherlandshire on Saturday, the 10th of May. He thought it his duty to mention this, inasmuch as that officer had been 40 years in the service; and he had boon with him sometimes a month at a time, because he (Sir James Elphinstone) made it his duty, if possible, to see the

    173
    harbours in all weathers. He (Sir James Elphinstone) deplored the death of this officer, who was one of the most intelligent men he had ever had the pleasure of knowing, and his object in addressing the Committee at that moment was to offer to his family some words of condolence.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURagain complained that while between £40,000 and £50,000 was expended on Dover Harbour, and also large sums were given for Irish harbours, the miserable sum of £3,000 was all that was given for Scotch harbours. Moreover, there was no security that when the money was laid out they would have any harbours at all. He knew sufficient of harbours to say that the harbours in Scotland were constructed under the general control of the Fishery Board, composed of gentlemen mostly incapable men. The plans or designs of these harbours were most imperfect, owing to the want of experience. Altogether £10,000,000 of public money had been expended on harbours in the United Kingdom. There was not more than one million's worth of good harbours for that sum. He had reported to the Treasury in 1877 the state of Dunbar Harbour. No notice, otherwise than a mere acknowledgment, had been taken of his statements, either with regard to Anstruther or Dunbar. He maintained that the building and repair of these harbours had been greatly paid for out of misappropriated money. Grants of public money, and loans by the Public Works Commissioners, had been made under the idea of the plans being sufficient for providing good harbours, or on the notion of securities existing which had proved illusory. He warned the Secretary to the Treasury not to get into a mess with Dunbar Harbour. The repairs would involve a considerable outlay, and when completed would fail to make the place ever suitable for boats. He urged him not to allow the engineer of the Fishery Board to meddle with the harbours of that country. The Scotch Fishery Board was composed really of two Boards—the Fishery Board and the Board of Manufactures. The Board as composed might be fit for manufactures, but not qualified for directing or controlling the construction of harbours. He was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that only a small sum would
    174
    be allotted to the repairs of Dunbar Harbour; and even if any money was to be spent for the purpose, he trusted the permission of Parliament would first be asked to sanction the expenditure in a regular manner. Moreover, even the small sum of money spent in Scotland was spent in a very loose manner, much more being spent in the South than in the North. The Fishery Board was guilty of great favouritism, and the expenditure of the many thousands on such a harbour as that of Dunbar was an instance of it.
    MR. SULLIVANsaid, that nearly every year a discussion was raised with the object of securing to Ireland similar advantages to those enjoyed by Scotland in the matter of fisheries. Irish Members were extremely sorry to have to object to the expenditure of this money in Scotland; but that was the only form in which the Rules of the House allowed them to raise their claims. It was, apparently, a very ungracious thing to object to the expenditure on Scotch fisheries, while asking for a like expenditure in Ireland; but there was no alternative for them but to move to reduce the Vote for Scotland, in order to obtain a similar grant for Ireland. He trusted, therefore, that hon. Members from Scotland would understand that their objections to the expenditure of the money in Scotland was only apparent, and not real, and that all they desired was to have advantages in Ireland similar to what were enjoyed in Scotland. What was it they heard every year from their Friends North of the Tweed? Instead of throwing any impediment in the way of Ireland, all they said was that now Scotland could afford to do without the grant. No doubt, they now despised the grant; but there was a time when they did not despise it. They had it stated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down (Sir George Balfour), that no sooner was the grant established than the fisheries of Scotland sprang into prosperity.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURobserved, that at one time the Government paid persons to get the barrels branded; he believed the sum of 4d. per barrel was thus paid, entailing a considerable outlay on the Exchequer. Afterwards, by the advice of a Committee, the allowance from Government for permission to apply this brand was abolished; but it was subsequently

    175
    re-established, but was then paid for by the persons using it. About £7,000 was now paid into the Exchequer for the use of this brand, and during the time this payment had continued, the Government had received, on the whole, nearly £80,000.
    MR. SULLIVANthanked the hon. and gallant Gentleman for throwing further light on the matter. According to his statement, no sooner was the brand restored than the traders found it worth their while to pay for the use of it. That they had been so ready to avail themselves of the brand, and had paid so many thousands into the Imperial Exchequer on account of it, was a proof that it was of great use to them. The people of Scotland would not pay for the use of the brand unless it were of advantage to them, and all that was now asked on behalf of Ireland was that that country might have a similar chance of paying for a Government brand. Let no one tell him that the brand was of no advantage in trade, for so long as the people of Scotland, who were not deficient in shrewdness, paid for it, it was clear that it was found an advantage in trade. In the South of Ireland there was a considerable trade in butter; there was a Government brand on Cork butter, and butter bearing the brand, whether it came from Cork or not, always fetched the highest price, because of the reputation of the Cork brand. In any market in the world, the butter with the Cork brand fetched the highest price, and although some butter might be put in casks without the brand, yet it would not fetch anything like the same price. Therefore, they felt it would be of use if they were allowed to use a brand for fish. They were willing to pay for the use of that brand, and would again and again ask for its establishment. At the same time, he would assure the people of Scotland that they did not want to take from them the brand they used, but simply desired the Government to establish for the Irish fisheries a similar brand to what was used in Scotland. The expense of setting up that brand would be amply recouped to the Exchequer by the payments of the Irish fishermen, in like manner as the Scotch fishermen now paid for the use of their brand. £100,000 had been lent from the Public Exchequer for Dunbar harbour, in Scotland; they did not complain of that, and they
    176
    had no desire to object to any just expenditure in Scotland. At the same time, they thought that Ireland was entitled to money from the Imperial Exchequer for similar purposes. With respect to the severe complaints of Scotch Members about the Scotch Fishery Board, he begged that the House would not take them too seriously. The Fishery Board had many valuable functions to perform, whether in Ireland or in Scotland, and if it were abolished people would then begin to discover what advantages they enjoyed by missing them. The traders in the streets of London required the occasional interference of the police in order to sell their wares securely, and what the police were to the traders in the streets of London the Fishery Board was to those engaged upon the sea. With respect to the Scotch Fishery Vote now before the Committee, if his memory served him rightly, the Scotch river fisheries were not provided for by that Vote; whereas the Irish river fisheries were included in the Vote for the Irish Fishery Board. He thought that fact would explain an apparent disproportion between the Votes. Again, on behalf of his own constituents, and as one of the Members for Ireland, he re-iterated for the fifth Session, the request of the Irish people to be allowed, for the protection of their industries, to have the use of a brand like that to which the fisheries in Scotland owed their prosperity.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONrose to correct a misapprehension of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) to the effect that the brand was used by all the Scotch fisheries. The hon. and learned Member probably did not know that the brand was only used on the East Coasts of Scotland, and that on the West Coasts it was of no use whatever. The herrings on the West Coasts were bred in warmer water, and were of a soft, oily character, which rendered them unsuitable for the foreign market. The brand was of use only for the foreign trade, and there was, therefore, no object in branding the herrings on the Western Coasts. The Irish herrings were of the same character as those upon the West Coasts of Scotland, and were quite unsuitable for the foreign market. Therefore, for the herring fisheries of Ireland there would be no use in a brand, the brand only

    177
    being of use for fish sent to foreign markets. A very large herring fishery was carried on on the West Coast of Scotland, but the brand was not used there at all. He would also like to make a remark with regard to the expenditure of the officers employed by the Fishery Board, as objection had been made to an allowance of £100 or £50 to the officers employed in the service of the Fishery Board. He might say that those gentlemen were put to very great expense in travelling about and living on the coasts. The hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) had referred in very appropriate terms to the death of Captain Macdonald. He thought if the hon. Member who had objected to this allowance had known that officer, he would not have proposed its reduction. Captain Macdonald had rendered most useful services to the fishermen, and had saved several lives by his gallant conduct. He hoped the Committee would not object to the small allowance of £100 or £50 for the miscellaneous expenses of the Naval officers in the service of the Board.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he was struck by the remark of the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir James Elphinstone), that a greater amount of money was taken out of a given part of the sea than was taken out of the same area of land. That was a fact of great importance. He approved of the Vote as it stood. He thought that the Government might very well pay a little more attention than they had hitherto done to the fisheries of the country. The interests of the country were by no means all upon the land, as was very often assumed; and he did not think that sufficient attention was given to matters connected with the fisheries. He would be very glad indeed if their Irish Friends would give them something to brand, for he did think that now food was so very scarce, everything should be done to encourage fishing, which supplied so very valuable an article of food. He was told by those who understood the matter that a great deal more might be done in fishing than now took place. Our agriculturists were being pushed by the Americans; but, on the other hand, this country did not push the Americans enough in the matter of fishing. In
    178
    Kent, at the present time, we branded hops; that was very fair. Public money was advanced for drainage and other works, and money was given for harbours, and laws were made for the protection of cattle; but he was strongly of opinion that something more should be done to encourage fishing round the coasts of this country. One reason why he said so was, because he found the secretary of the Scotch Fishery Board disposing of half of his time as an official of another Board. A man could not serve two masters, or, at all events, he could not work well in such a position. Perhaps fishing was a line art in Scotland, and, therefore, the secretary and one of the clerks received half of their pay from the Fine Art Gallery of Scotland. He thought that the secretary of a Board charged with so important a matter as looking after the Fisheries should not have half of his time occupied in Edinburgh by attending to matters even so useful as the Fine Arts.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (12.) £4,621, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.
    (13.) £5,409, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that he had asked the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate why the annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages for Scotland had not yet been presented? The Report of the Registrar General for England was already before the House; but in Scotland the Report was in arrear, as was usually the case, and he had had frequent occasion to make complaints of the slowness with which that Department acted. With regard to the Irish Report, he had received an answer from the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as to when that Report might be expected, and he trusted that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would now be able to give the Committee some information as to when the Report of the Registrar General for Scotland would be in the hands of hon. Members.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)replied, that the hon. and gallant

    179
    Member opposite (Sir George Balfour) was under a misapprehension in saying that any Question had ever been addressed to him upon the subject. Neither had he ever had Notice of any such Question.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that he did not give Notice to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as he had communicated with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who had referred him (Sir George Balfour) to the Lord Advocate. The Lord Advocate, not being present when that was said, did not answer the Question; but the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had courteously answered him with respect to that country. He expected that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, being informed of the matter, would subsequently have given him the information, but he had not done so. If he had omitted any form in his application for the information, he might say that it was contrary to his intention. He now begged to ask the Lord Advocate for the desired information.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, that not being the head of the Local Government Board, the Question put to him did not come under his observation. He understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that if he (the Lord Advocate) had been in his place, he would have given him Notice, but that he had not done so since. He could not answer the Question, nor could he admit that the Report was in arrear. He understood that the Report of the Registrar General was circulated at the end of April in each year, and he had no reason whatever to doubt that such had also been the case in the present year.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the President of the Local Government Board had referred the Question to the Lord Advocate, and he assumed that that would be sufficient, without any further Questions being put. If he had not thought so, he would have been in his place to put the Question. He now begged to ask the Question of the Lord Advocate.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, he was not in a position to give any further answer to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member.
    MR. WHITWELLwished to draw attention to the fact that the expenditure on the travelling expenses of the Office of the Registrar General in Scotland amounted to £1,200, while the salaries were only £5,389. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) would give some explanation of this, for although he was not one that judged of the work done by the remuneration, yet he thought the expenses for travelling in Scotland were very excessive. In England, the travelling expenses only amounted to £970, although there was so much more to do there. He also noticed that the Secretary to the Office received the bulk of his allowance for duties of inspection. He should like to know what duties of inspection those were, and whether the amount received by the Secretary was in excess of his salary?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas quite aware that the expenditure in travelling allowances in Scotland was much larger than in England. The necessity for that arose from the system of district examination in Scotland, which was peculiar to that country. The district Inspectors in Scotland had large districts to travel over, and that was the reason for the allowances made to them.
    Vote agreed to.
    (14.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £15,523, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Expenses under the Public Health and Vaccination Acts, including certain Grants in Aid of Local Taxation in Scotland."
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY MR. J. W. BARCLAY moved to reduce the Vote by £2,200, principally for the purpose of calling attention to the great increase of expense in the management of the poor in the last few years. Between 1869 and 1878 the cost of management had risen by £23,000, and he was strongly of opinion that this great additional expense was due to the interference of the Board of Supervision in local management. What had that Board done during the last year? They dismissed one Inspector. They had censured two governors of poor houses, and

    181
    had dismissed one, and had censured one medical officer. That seemed to be the work they had done. The chairman of the Board of Supervision received £1,200. When three members attended it, it was called a Board, when only two it was called a committee. Practically the management rested in the hands of one gentleman, who controlled those who were well able to manage their own affairs without any interference at all. He found that in one case the Board censured the Guardians because on a particular occasion they gave the paupers a cup of tea instead of porridge. When they could attend to such matters, it showed that they had little to do. It was thought they would see that the poor were not unduly pressed upon by the Guardians. But that was an entire mistake. They urged the application of the poorhouse test, knowing there were many people who would rather die than go to the workhouse. In that way they sought to reduce the rates. It was, he believed, intended still further to increase the burdens by passing a Bill appointing Auditors for the parishes in Scotland. He believed that the interference of the Board of Supervision prevented many gentlemen from acting on parochial boards, because they did not like their interference. Originally, the Board was instituted with the idea that it would look after the poor, and stand between them and the local boards; but there was no necessity for anything of the kind, and the fact was in the result the Board of Supervision had not fulfilled its original intention. It put pressure on the local boards, and, as he had said, urged them in their treatment of the poor to apply the poorhouse test. There were many people in Scotland who would rather die than go to the poorhouse, and no doubt, therefore, the system of the Board was an economical one. The result of the action of the Board of Supervision was an economy in the poor-rates of £26,000, but the whole of that amount was swallowed up in the increased charges of management.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £13,323, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for expenses under the
    182
    Public Health and Vaccination Acts, including certain grants in Aid of Local Taxation in Scotland."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
    MR. ORR-EWINGsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. W. Barclay) should have referred to the Board of Supervision in the strain he did. He should have thought that anyone acquainted with Scotland would have known the necessity that existed for the Board of Supervision to control the parochial boards throughout the country. He believed, having served upon several local boards, that as between the ratepayers, the parochial boards, and the Inspectors, the functions of the Board of Supervision were most useful. He denied altogether that the Board of Supervision concerned itself in the introduction of Bills into that House. The Bill which the hon. Member had referred to was promoted by Her Majesty's Government, and was almost unanimously supported in Scotland. That Bill provided for an audit taking place of the accounts of the local board, and he was never more surprised in his life than to hear the audit objected to. He thought if the hon. Member had studied the question more carefully, he would not have made the remarks he had done.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out, that the Committee would not be in Order in discussing the provisions of a Bill which, he believed, was now waiting for second reading.
    MR. JAMES STEWARTquite agreed with the statement of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), that it was objectionable to have questions raised as to the proportion of money voted to different portions of the Kingdom. He thought there was no more disagreeable duty to an hon. Member coming from Scotland than to raise such questions; but, at the same time, it could not be doubted that throughout Scotland there was a strong feeling that the amount given for public purposes from the Revenue to Scotland was not in proportion to what might justly be awarded to her, and that was specially the case in regard to the amount granted for medical relief. He observed that £10,000 was put down for medical grants in aid, and in the note it was stated that this money was distributed in sums of from under £1 to £500 and upwards. He observed in England and Ireland

    183
    that half the total amount—[Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: A quarter.]—was given, and, therefore, he would like to know on what principle the £10,000 was arrived at?
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONhoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would not be pressed to a Division; for he was quite certain that if it were, very few Scotch Members would vote for it. It was proposed to reduce the Vote by £2,200, the salaries of the chairman and the secretary, and, therefore, to leave the Board in existence without either an official or a head. The hon. Gentleman had not stated the grounds on which he moved the reduction of the Vote, and seemed to forget that the Board of Supervision was created under the Act of 1845, on which the whole Poor Law system of Scotland was based, and the whole system would break down if the Board of Supervision were at once done away with. The proper course would be for the hon. Member to move the repeal of the Act of 1845, which created the system. To take away the chairman and secretary of one of the most important bodies in the Kingdom was certainly most incongruous, and he should, therefore, vote against the Amendment, if the hon. Member proceeded to a Division.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had taken what might be called the popular view of the question—["No, no!"]—at least as seen in the boroughs and the large centres of population. He (Mr. Mark Stewart) himself, however, had been chairman of a very large board, and had taken a very active interest in its working, and he could state most emphatically that many questions were solved and settled by the Board of Supervision, which otherwise would have involved litigation to a very considerable extent. There was not the least hardship in the powers possessed by the Board; on the contrary, he believed that under its management the affairs of the country were better managed than they were before. There were many very complicated questions of settlement, especially in the rural districts, which would otherwise have to be decided at great cost at the Court of Sessions, which were constantly settled by this Board in a very
    184
    satisfactory manner. Again, the Board undertook a great deal of correspondence, and often gave country boards very useful information as to the working of the Poor Law in other districts. If they did not have this central Board in Edinburgh, they would only find themselves under the control of the central Department in London; and he, for one, had always been strongly opposed to centralization. He did not wish to see more extended powers given to the Board; but he certainly thought something might be done to put it in a position to do greater good. There was another feature in the Board of Supervision that must not be forgotten—namely, that a pauper could appeal from his local board to the Board of Supervision, so that the latter body was a great assistance in getting justice done to the poor in Scotland. The hon. Member had laid great stress on the fact that the whole policy of the Board of Supervision was to make the poorhouse the test of pauperism. No doubt that was in many instances a very useful test, and it was a fair and honest thing that a man who could work and would not work should have that experiment tried on him. The Board was also of great assistance, not so much in reducing as in regulating the poor rate, by giving information about the working of the workhouse tests. He did not at all wish to see the Board done away with. At the same time, he knew that the audit was most imperfectly made, and if it were more perfect it would become a very useful instrument in effectually carrying out the Poor Law system of Scotland. Again, with regard to the dismissal of Inspectors, they all knew very well that, in rural districts especially, jealousies grew up between the Inspector and some of the parishioners, not at all on the question of his fitness, but on some side issue. Certain individuals often had a great dislike to the Inspector, and, therefore, it was very important that he should be protected in doing his duty honestly and honourably, exposed as he was to very great temptations. He was not saying anything derogatory to the Poor Law Inspectors, who did their work very conscientiously; but if they knew that their dismissal depended on the decision of a body elected by the popular voice, and not on the negative or affirmative of the Board of Supervision, they might

    185
    be influenced in their actions by the fear of popular opinion. He hoped, after hearing these reasons, that the House would have no difficulty in coming to a decision on this matter. It would certainly, in his opinion, be a great mistake to do away with the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh, which had done very good work, and was still capable of doing very good work, because of the cost of the Board, which, after all, considering all things, was really very little indeed.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he believed, from all he had been able to ascertain, that the great majority of the Scotch Members did not coincide with the attack which the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had made upon the Board of Supervision, and upon its working. That being so, after the admirable speech of his hon. Friend (Mr. Mark Stewart), it was not necessary for him to go into details of the work of the Board, for he thought the merits of that work were now fairly submitted to the consideration of the Committee. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Greenock (Mr. James Stewart), as to the medical grants-in-aid, was raised on the Vote on Account, and the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put Scotland in a similar condition as to medical relief with England and Ireland was then spoken of. He need only repeat the statement he then made, that the Treasury were quite prepared, as soon as the Bill now before the House, which placed Scotland in the same position as England and Ireland with regard to medical officers, had passed, to grant the same terms to that country as were enjoyed by other parts of the United Kingdom. The Treasury would then pay half the allowance to the medical officers, and the present grant of £10,000 would cease.
    DR. CAMERONhoped his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) would not divide on this Motion. He agreed entirely with him that the constitution of this Board was altogether anomalous, and that under a proper system of local boards it would be entirely unnecessary; yet he could quite understand the contention of hon. Members opposite that as parochial boards were now constituted it would be quite impossible to get along, at any rate, in the country districts, without
    186
    some central control. The position was very different in the towns and in the country. In the towns there was something like a representative board; whereas in the counties, the constitution of the board was most anomalous. It sometimes comprised 500, 1,000, or even 1,500 members—all the rate-paying owners, in fact, with half-a-dozen or a dozen of the rate-paying occupiers, some representatives of the Magistracy, and some of the Kirk Sessions. A board so constituted, often not having even a committee of management, could not be regulated in its action without some benevolent despotism of this kind. Therefore, he felt that if his hon. Friend took a division at the present moment, he would take it on a false issue. Though he quite agreed with him as to its faulty construction, and as to the inadvisability of taking the supervision and management of local affairs out of the hands of the ratepayers, he must say that as long as they had their local affairs in Scotland managed by cumbrous bodies of this sort, he did not think they could get on without some official body to keep matters straight. As to what the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had said about medical relief, he trusted this was not another of those long-deferred promises by which the heart of Scotland had been made sick. Ever since the commencement of the present Parliament they had been promised every year that as soon as some Act was passed which would place Scotland in the same position as England as to audit, that they should be placed in the same position also as to medical relief. He would suggest to the hon. Baronet that what was desired might be very easily obtained by insisting upon a proper system of audit, so far as regarded the expenditure in respect of which a Government subsidy was granted, and then placing them on an equal footing with the sister countries, so far as concerned the grant-in-aid. It was quite proper that the Government, before granting one farthing of money for which they would be called on to account, should insist on a most strict and scrutinizing audit. But the proper way to deal with the question was to bring in a Bill relating to that alone, instead of repeatedly promising that at some paulo post future period Scotland should be put in the same position as England and Ireland.

    187
    If that were done, Scotland would soon be in a position to which she was justly entitled, and of which she had been deprived for what seemed to him very inadequate reasons.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONbegged to explain, as he was afraid he had been misunderstood. The whole contention on the part of the Government was, that if an application was made for equal grants, Scotland must accept the same conditions as were accepted by England and Ireland with regard to her medical officers. At present, those gentlemen were not appointed compulsorily, and they were dismissible at pleasure by the Scotch parochial board. These were not the conditions existing in England and Ireland, where these officers were subject to the Local Government Board. The Bill now before the House put the two countries on the same footing, and as soon as it was carried the grant would be made.
    MR. M'LAGANreminded the Committee that this was not the first time the Board of Supervision had been attacked in that House. Ten years ago, it was attacked far more violently. In consequence, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the charges made; and after sitting two years it issued a Report, which did not recommend that the powers of the Board should be diminished, but, on the contrary, that they should be considerably increased. As a member of three parochial boards, he could say that he never knew the Board of Supervision to interfere unnecessarily; and, for his part, he believed the parochial boards were glad to ask the advice of the Board of Supervision, and that advice was always given most frankly, freely, and with great advantage to those who sought it, and to the poor of whom they had charge. As the hon. Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Mr. Mark Stewart) had said, if the Board of Supervision was abolished, they would only have in its place some central body in London, probably the Local Government Board. For his part, he objected most strongly to any such attempt at centralization, and he trusted that every Scotch Member would lift up his voice against the possibility of the Board of Supervision in Scotland being abolished, and that they would vote against the Amendment.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he also believed that in the country parishes in Scotland, the Board of Supervision had been in the habit of giving very excellent advice to the different boards throughout the country, and the general feeling of the great majority of the country parishes in Scotland was that they were perfectly satisfied with the constitution of the Board. He had been chairman of a board for many years, and he had always found the Board of Supervision most ready to give their advice to assist parochial boards in the administration of what was often a very difficult matter.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he had no doubt that the advice given by the Board of Supervision might occasionally be very excellent; but the question raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay), and upon which the urban constituencies had a strong opinion, was whether the advice was worth paying for at the rate of £2,200 a-year. He contended there was no Board of Supervision at all. There was a chairman who got £1,200 a-year, and the secretary with £1,000 a-year. No doubt, they interested themselves a good deal in their work, and wrote a good many letters; but, as had already been shown, very little was obtained for the money. His hon. Friend did not ask that they should abolish the whole machinery of the Board, but that they should abolish these two unnecessary gentlemen, and that the matter should be put into the hands of headquarters for supervision. He (Mr. E. Jenkins) was speaking with some knowledge of the feeling of his own constituents, at any rate, when he said that in the urban districts of Scotland there was a strong feeling against the interference of this Board of Supervision, which was not responsible to Parliament. He knew nothing of the advantage of the Board to the country districts; but that was not the question raised. He should not advise his hon. Friend to divide on the present occasion, for the subject required further ventilation; but he had no doubt that the agitation of the question would finally result in the country dispensing with the services of the chairman and secretary.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYreminded the Committee that there had been many complaints against the different boards in Scotland some years

    189
    ago, and that, in consequence, the Treasury had sent down a Commission under Lord Camperdown to enquire into their working; and he felt quite sure the hon. Member for Dundee had never read the Report they gave of the Board of Supervision or he would not have made the charges he had just made against that Board.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he did not attack the doings of the Board at all. It appeared to him to be a most anomalous body, which might certainly be dispensed with if they had properly-constituted parochial boards throughout the country; but, on the other hand, he was aware that the Committee reported that the charges brought against the Board were not substantiated.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNremarked, that the Sheriffs of Perth, Renfrew, and Ross, were official members of the Board, and received £150 a-year each. He wanted to know why those Sheriffs especially were chosen members of the Board of Supervision? He knew they were appointed by the Act of Parliament; but he wished to know why they were chosen, and what duties they performed?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)replied, that they were appointed, and their remuneration was fixed, by the Act of 1845.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, he knew that. He wanted to know on what ground they were selected?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, they were named in the Statute as members of the Board, and their remuneration was also fixed by the Statute.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was quite aware of the truth of what had been stated—namely, that the inquiry referred to had resulted in showing that the Board of Supervision had done very good work. At the same time, he fully agreed with the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) in thinking that if they had local boards at all, it was injurious that they should be deprived of all power over their own officers, and that they should he obliged to apply to the Board of Supervision every time they had to discharge one of their officials. He was also inclined to think that the Board of Supervision was somewhat afflicted with the view that it was necessary to adopt a
    190
    hard and harsh line of conduct towards the poor, and to force the local boards to send them to a poor house, when, perhaps, the latter board might be in favour of a more kindly, and, perhaps, on the whole, a more economical course. But, for all that, he knew that as things were then, it would be impossible to do away with some such officer as they had at the head of the Board of Supervision; and, therefore, he supposed his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay), in proposing to do away with the whole Board at one blow, had only taken that course in order to obtain an opportunity of submitting his opinions upon this subject to the House. There was another view of the matter which he (Sir George Campbell) wished to place before the Committee, and it was that the Board of Supervision was something more than the head of a Poor Law Department, for they had sanitary and other Departments entrusted to them, and were, as a matter of fact, the sole representatives in Scotland of the body which in England would be called the Local Government Board. Now, there seemed to be a good deal of current opinion that some re-arrangement of the Board was desirable, and he ventured to submit that its functions should be so adjusted that it should perform the duties of a Local Government Board. In the matter of statistics, he thought the Scotch people were ill-used. Personally, he took a great interest in statistics; and either during the last Session, or the Session before that, he had put a Question to the Government, and had obtained in reply a promise that the tabulated statistics of local affairs which were given with reference to England and Ireland should also be furnished with regard to Scotland. But a very considerable time had passed, and he was not aware that anything had been done to supply the statistics promised so long ago. He could not say whether it was the fault of the Board of Supervision or not; but he hoped the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate would state what arrangements had been made to obtain the desired information for the House, and who was answerable that it had not been already supplied. For himself, he thought it should be the function of the Board of Supervision to supply these statistics, and if it was their fault that they had not done so,

    191
    he should vote very heartily for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire to punish them by abolishing them.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYrose to explain that he had no desire whatever for centralization; on the contrary, it was on account of his objection to centralization, that he objected to the Board of Supervision. He wished that England and Scotland should have local representative boards to manage their own affairs. Under the present system, there was no representation in the rural districts, because the administration of the poor laws was practically in the hands of the minister and his Kirk Session. That was an anomaly, in as much as the parish minister did not pay any poor-rate. It might be necessary, meanwhile, that the Board should exercise some control over the rural parishes. No confidence should be placed in the statement that localities could not manage their own affairs; he had no doubt whatever that they perfectly well knew how to do that, and there was no more reason for the Board of Supervision to control a parochial board, if representative, than there was for it to control a town council, or a board of police commissioners, bodies which had the control of a large sum of money. The Home Secretary had promised an Under Secretary of State for Scotland, and, in his opinion, this new official could very properly and advantageously discharge such duties as were now incumbent on the Board of Supervision. The Inspectors would report to him, and he, with a seat in this House, would be responsible. At present there was no one responsible for the administration of local business in Scotland but the Board of Supervision; but that Board was not represented in the House of Commons. An Under Secretary of State would take very much the place in Scotland that the Local Government Board took in England, and it was with that view he wished to abolish this irresponsible office of the Board of Supervision. He hoped that the powers of the Board would fall into the hands of the Under Secretary of State for Scotland promised by the Home Secretary; that the Inspectors should report to him just in the same way as the Inspectors of Mines and Collieries reported to the Home Secretary in England; that the new
    192
    Under Secretary should put a stop to the exercise of unnecessary control; and that he should be responsible to the House for the administration of local affairs in Scotland. He would be able to exercise all the control that was necessary, and would be responsible to that House for proper administration. By this policy, centralization would be decreased instead of being increased.
    MR. RAMSAY, who rose amidst considerable interruption, said, it was not much of the time of the Committee or House that Scotland usually occupied, and he thought it was necessary that they should have a perfect understanding of the Vote. The only explanation the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) gave of the refusal to grant an additional sum to Scotland in aid of medical officers employed by the various parish boards was that the medical officers had not been properly appointed under the existing law of Scotland. Well, he should like the hon. Baronet to point out to him a single instance, a single parish in Scotland, for which a medical officer had not been appointed. No doubt, the hon. Baronet had a good acquaintance with Scotland; but so far as his (Mr. Ramsay's) experience was concerned, he was not aware of a single instance in which any parish in Scotland had been left without a medical officer to take charge of the paupers within its limits. If that was so, what was the use of the hon. Baronet telling them that the officers should be compulsorily appointed? It was idle to give that as a reason for the Vote of £280,000 for England, as compared with £10,000 for Scotland. If an anomaly of that kind was to be justified by some defect in the law of Scotland, he did not see in what manner they were ever to come to an equitable administration of public affairs. It was a fact that medical officers were appointed for every parish in Scotland. If they were not compulsorily appointed, he did not know how it was that Scotch people came to be so considerate of the wants of the poor as to appoint a medical officer at their own expense for the paupers in every parish, when the officers were not appointed in that way in England. If they continued the Vote to England, they should give a corresponding Vote to Scotland.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, the dis-

    193
    cussion that has taken place having thoroughly satisfied me for the present.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)quite admitted the promise which had been given to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). He might explain that, after due inquiry, it was not thought necessary to increase the staff of the Board of Supervision for the purpose of collecting those statistics, because at that moment there was a Departmental Committee, sitting under the Chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), to consider the best mode of collecting official statistics of that class in similar terms for the three divisions of the United Kingdom.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,852, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."
    MR. E. JENKINSbegged to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,562 for the Queen's Plates in Ireland. The hon. Baronet the Member for Fins-bury (Sir Andrew Lusk), having moved that the money for the Queen's Plate in Scotland should not be granted, he (Mr. E. Jenkins) thought it but fair that the Committee should endeavour to mete out to Ireland the same justice as to England and Scotland. The Irish Members, he was sure, would not feel that there was any impropriety or inconsistency in asking that this large sum spent in the encouragement of gambling in Ireland should be done away with. In the first place, it was but a mere pretence that this grant in any way assisted the improvement of the breed of horses. He thought that no hon. Member in the Committee would get up to defend that view of the case. The country was so rich that it contained a great number of persons quite able to afford to improve the breed of horses without the incentive of running for the Queen's Plates; and, in his opinion, it was absolutely neces-
    194
    sary that the Plates should be abolished. Unhappily, the spirit of gambling was itself sufficiently active to induce people to breed horses for the purpose of enabling the people to gamble. He ventured to say that there was not a single public school in the country in which there would not be a sweepstakes on the approaching Derby. Was it a proper thing to encourage these Queen's Plates? The Metropolitan Racecourses Bill had been supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, on the ground that it was necessary to place some restrictions upon racing facilities in the immediate neighbourhood of the Metropolis, and the motive for the Bill was that these races collected together almost all the scum of the Kingdom. It could not be right that the Queen's Plates should be voted for the purpose of giving such people the opportunity of gambling. Races were undoubtedly patronized by persons of respectability—persons sitting on the front Benches of the House—but for all that they were highly demoralizing, and the Committee should not be called upon to vote money for the encouragement of the practice of horse-racing, which led to riots and disturbances, and really made the places in the neighbourhood of which they were carried on unfit for the habitation of respectable persons. He would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,562.
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,290, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had heard with very great distress the observation of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. E. Jenkins), that the morals of the young men in the public schools of the country were being sapped by the habit of betting, which the hon. Member attributed to the existence of the Queen's Plates. He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was unable to consider the hon. Gentleman the best exponent in the Committee of the practices in the public schools of England, and had, in fact, reason to know that the statement was grossly exaggerated; indeed, he knew perfectly

    195
    well that in very few public schools in England was there any betting whatever, and what there was could certainly not be attributed to the Queen's Plates. He received every year from the discussion which arose upon this portion of the Estimates an increasing moral shock, because, in listening to the protests of his Scotch Friends, he knew them to be without reality, and mere sham. He would prove this incontestably by argument and by fact. This Vote had been protested against by the Scotch Members on several occasions, and on one memorable occasion, four years ago, they took a Division and carried their point. The Committee consequently disallowed the Vote for Scotland, and what was the consequence? All Scotland was in a state of ferment during the whole of the succeeding 12 months. Members went home to their constituents only to be asked, what in the world have you done? The next year his hon. Friends got the decision reversed, and actually succeeded in persuading the Treasury to pay them the sum previously disallowed. After that, he confessed that his faith in the virtue of his Scotch Friends was very much shaken. Now, the Irish Members had never objected to these Queen's Plates; on the contrary, they all wished they were larger, and maintained that instead of, as at present, being concentrated on a few spots, they should be diffused over the country. They also believed that the breed of horses in Ireland had been very materially improved by them; but, if not, they were still willing to take the money, because it increased the enjoyments of the people. He ventured to remind the Committee of what the Prime Minister had said—namely, that Ireland was discontented because she was not amused. Although he did not agree with that, there could be no question that there did exist a great deficiency in the amusements which brought together the people of England and Scotland in Ireland—for, owing to other causes, there was a great gulph between the rich and the poor—and he rejoiced at the meetings which took place at the Curragh of Kildare, and elsewhere, where the rich and the poor, the landlord and the tenant, and others who were divided by religious and social distinctions, met in the enjoyment of one common pastime. He wished to remind the Committee that the races in Ireland
    196
    were not usually of the kind called in England by the name of flat races, for they implied something in the shape of courage and jumping, a very large proportion of them being hurdle-races. For these reasons, he felt sure that the Committee would not agree to the proposition of his hon. Friend, whose virtue, at any rate, was not appreciated in Scotland, against the deprivation of money which his constituents had for so long enjoyed; and who, if they succeeded in taking it away, would certainly not help the Irish Members to get back their share.
    MR. ISAACthought that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) committed a mistake in looking upon racing as an immoral sport. He was in error, also, in referring to a Bill which had passed in "another place" that night as a condemnation of racing on the part of the House. That Bill had really nothing to do with the question before the Committee, as it was only passed by that House with the view to suppress small races in the vicinity of London, which had become a disturbance and an annoyance to the neighbourhood in which they were held. That had nothing to do with the great races of the country, which were most advantageous in encouraging the production and rearing of horses. He therefore thought it would be wrong in the Committee to assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Dundee, as they would thereby deprive Ireland of an encouragement which she richly deserved, which was at once an amusement for the people, and an incentive to improvement in the breed of horses—an essential element in Irish prosperity.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhoped that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) would press his Motion to a Division. It was a farce to say that these grants really encouraged the breed of horses; that was not done by means of the horses trained for races, as they consisted of the most weedy animals. Those races were a source of great demoralization to horses and men, and set a very bad example in the neighbourhoods where they were held, and far beyond. One of the evils from these races was the encouragement it gave to betting all over the country; in many a school in the country sweepstakes took place over these races, and the same occurred

    197
    in India, in the Colonies, and in every part of the English-speaking world. It was a source of demoralization not only to young men, but to young women. It was a farce that they should make laws against lotteries, and yet permit great sweepstakes on races. This was a subject upon which he had had some experience, for, when in India, he had to put down the sweepstake lotteries. These things had grown into an enormous abuse, and, in spite of great unpopularity, he had exerted his authority to put them down. In his opinion, the giving of these Plates encouraged gambling of this kind, and it was inconsistent that Parliament should support them while it condemned lotteries.
    MR. J. LOWTHERhad no wish to take exception to hon. Members for Scotland taking part in a debate upon a question which related entirely to Ireland; for he had always maintained that every hon. Member had an absolute right to discuss every matter brought before the House of Commons without any reference to what particular part of the United Kingdom he might happen to represent. At the same time, he thought that considering the Representatives of Scotland had already challenged the principle of the Vote for Queen's Plates in connection with that part of the United Kingdom which they themselves represented, it was rather a strong course for Scotch Members to raise that identical question again in the case of the Queen's Plates for Ireland. That seemed to him to be rather infringing the salutary Rule which forbade discussion of the same question twice over. He would not weary the Committee by going over again the arguments in favour of the retention of those Plates; for he thought that it had been sufficiently shown that the voice of the Irish Representatives was entirely in their favour. For these reasons, he hoped that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), who, he believed, was himself an advocate of the principle of Home Rule, would not persist in going to a Division.
    MR. WHITWELLobserved, that these Queen's Plates had been under discussion on many previous occasions, and he should like the Chief Secretary for Ireland to give some information with regard to them. A promise had been given on several occasions that the grant
    198
    should be divided so as really to make it advantageous to the breeding of horses; but they had not yet been told what was the proper appropriation of this Vote, or whether the system was under revision. For his part, he would rather make the Vote larger in a year, and properly appropriate it, in order to encourage the breeding of horses, instead of applying it, as at present, in a disadvantageous manner.
    MR. J. LOWTHERobserved, that the question of the distribution of these Plates was under consideration. In one instance, it having been represented that a meeting was not of a character to justify giving a Plate to it, the Plate was transferred to another meeting. The instance to which he referred was that of Londonderry, where the races were certainly not in a very flourishing condition; the Plate was transferred from there to the City of Galway, where a rising meeting was established; and it was thought that good results would be produced by giving the Plate to it. He said this to show that the money was not appropriated in any obsolete lines; and how it could be further distributed in order to encourage the breeding of horses would from time to time be considered.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he would not have risen again, if it had not been that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had charged him with inconsistency in moving the reduction of the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to him as a Home Ruler; but he denied that he belonged to that Party. He wished to point out that the sum of £218 had been allowed to Scotland in respect of these Plates; whereas it was intended to give £1,562 to Ireland, and he, therefore, thought that the Scotch Members had some right to protest against this attempt to win Ireland, or, practically, to bribe it, by giving it this sum. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that in pure and moral Londonderry the races were not successful, and that, in consequence of it, the Government were obliged to go to the wilds of Galway to carry out one of these amazing meetings.
    MR O'SHAUGHNESSYdid not think that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was very much to blame for speaking of the hon Member for Dundee as a Home Ruler, for he did make some of

    199
    his Irish constituents believe that he was in favour of it. He rose, however, for the purpose of protesting against one expression of the hon. Member—namely, that in which he described these meetings as resorts for scoundrelism. He thought that was an undue, and that he would be right in saying a very improper, expression. The Irish peasantry went to races, and behaved themselves in the most decent manner, and like Christians, and no complaint could be made against them. They freely entered into the sport, and took great pleasure in the amusement. The hon. Gentleman evidently took his idea of race-meetings from some which were held near Glasgow, or, perhaps, some of the London races. He did not suppose that he had had a large experience in those matters; but when he came down to the Committee, and described those meetings as resorts for scoundrelism, he thought it would be wise to make himself better informed first.
    MAJOR NOLANdid not think that the epithet applied to Galway by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) was entirely justified, although he was sorry to say that the county was very much poorer in some parts than in others. The hon. Member, however well he might speak upon political questions within his knowledge, was extremely ignorant on many facts connected with Ireland. Speaking about these races in Ireland, he had alleged that a good deal of gambling took place there. No doubt, a certain amount of gambling took place in Ireland; but the extraordinary part was that it was only in connection with English races. Almost the same number of people betted in Dublin and Ireland as did so in London and Glasgow; but this betting took place on the English races, and was in no way affected by the Queen's Plates. In connection with the effect of the Queen's Plates upon the breeding of horses, he might say that a gentleman who knew a good deal about these matters had recently told him that horses were very often bred in Ireland and sent out of the country for racing purposes, and then returned again for breeding; and, were there no races in Ireland, gentlemen would not keep their horses there. Thus it was that the races held tended to keep up a proper stock of horses in Ireland, and those
    200
    races mainly depended for their continuance upon the Queen's Plates. A very little money was given to the country for this purpose—about £1,500—and the hon. Member was quite right in saying that only £200 was spent in Scotland for the same object. But the hon. Member for Dundee's real complaint was that Scotland was not demoralized to the same extent as Ireland. In his opinion, both countries got too little for this purpose. He would wish, however, to make some remarks with respect to the distribution of the grant for Queen's Plates. He thought it was a mistake to have races at the Curragh, although it was quite erroneous to allege that the race did harm to the towns. The fact was that a great objection to the way in which the Queen's Plates were distributed was that most of the races at which they were given were nearly 30 miles from any large town. The people, therefore, had great difficulty in getting to the courses where those races were held. He thought that a certain number of races should be run nearer each large town. He would recommend this point to the consideration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; for although trainers might wish to have the races run at their own doors, yet it would give more amusement to the people if the races were more equally distributed.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENobserved, that the question of the distribution of the Queen's Plates in Ireland had been raised in that House on several previous occasions. At the present time very small sums were raced for, and he did not think that the management of the grant for Queen's Plates was conducted in the best manner. It seemed to him that if the sum of £1,500 was divided and allocated to the four Provinces, to be raced for in alternate years, while they would increase the amusement of the people, the stakes might be made so considerable as to encourage improvement in the breed of horses. At the present moment, such small sums as £100 were not a sufficiently strong consideration to induce a man to breed horses for a particular race; whereas, if the money were divided in the way he had suggested, and the races run alternately in the four Provinces, he believed an inducement would be held out to the breeders of horses.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 165: Majority 121.—(Div. List, No. 89.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that, before the Vote was agreed to, he wished to refer to two officers in the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of whom no mention had been made that ovoning—he meant the two "gentlemen at large." There was evidently great extravagance in connection with the maintenance of the Vice-regal establishment in Ireland, arising especially from the number of officers who were attached to the personal Staff of the Viceroy, including, as they did, a private secretary, several aides-decamp, a steward of the household, a gentleman in waiting, a master of the horse, a gentleman usher, a chamberlain, besides the two "gentlemen at large." Now, Her Majesty had a great Viceroy in another part of Her Dominions, and he had some knowledge of the establishments which were kept up by him. In the case of the Viceroyalty in India, with which he was acquainted, the Representative of the Sovereign had a far more important charge committed to him than the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but the former, nevertheless, had only one private secretary, one military secretary—who had separate functions to perform—and three or four aides-de-camp. He could see no good reason, therefore, why, in addition to the various other officers which he had mentioned, the Lord Lieutenant should be furnished with two "gentlemen at large;" and he should, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £258—the amount of their salaries.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum not exceeding £5,596, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEbegged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £328, the amount of the salaries of two aides-de-camp attached to the Staff of
    202
    the Lord Lieutenant at Dublin Castle. It appeared that on the Staff of the Viceroy of India there were only eight aides-de-camp, while there were 11 on that of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He saw no good reason why that large number should be maintained on the Irish establishment; and he felt perfectly satisfied that if the Lord Lieutenant himself were consulted in the matter, he would say that eight aides-de-camp would be sufficient for all the purposes for which such officers were required. To have a greater number was to waste the public money, and to withdraw officers unnecessarily from the discharge of their regimental duties, to the disadvantage of the Service; for it was a complete mistake that the regiments of the Army were now over-officered. The real state of the case was the very reverse. The number of officers were far too few, and he feared that such appointments as those of which he was speaking were kept up mainly in order that the authorities at the Horse Guards might have a large amount of patronage at their disposal.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that he could not put the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as there was a Motion for the reduction of the Vote already before the Committee.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that, as a matter of fact, the salaries of only four aides-de-camp instead of 11, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) seemed to suppose, were defrayed out of the Estimates. It was all very well, he might add, to criticize the number of officers on the Staff of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as the Member for Kircaldy (Sir George Campbell) had done; but the real question was whether it was or was not expedient to maintain the Office of Viceroy in that country? If the answer was in the affirmative, it was absolutely necessary that the Viceregal Court should be kept up with becoming state. He did not believe that the people of Ireland wished to see the Office of Lord Lieutenant abolished, nor did he think they would like to see its dignity impaired.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it was quite clear that some hon. Members who objected to the expenditure on the establishment of the Lord Lietenant of Ireland were opposed to the con-

    203
    tinuance of the Vice-regal Office itself. Now, the question of abolishing or retaining the Office was one which had been frequently raised; and, no doubt, people entertained different opinions upon it, both in this country and in Ireland. His own belief was, however, that the great majority of the Irish people were decidedly in favour of continuing the Office, and upon this ground among others—that, so long as it continued to exist, it furnished tangible and distinct evidence of the differences by which the two countries were separated. He should, indeed, regard the abolition of the Office as a great disaster for Ireland, and it seemed to him a most extraordinary thing that any hon. Member should object to the small sum of £285 for the salaries of two officers whose services were required to keep up the dignity of the Representative of the Sovereign. The two "gentlemen at large" were, he thought, very cheap at the price, seeing that they had to be constantly at the beck and call of the Lord Lieutenant. Those who opposed the Vote that evening appeared to him to forget that the functions of the Irish Viceroy were very different from those which the Governor General of India had to discharge. One of the most important duties of the Lord Lieutenant, with the two "gentlemen at large" and his aides-de-camp, was to keep up to a proper standard the social amenities of the Irish capital, and to see that young ladies attending the balls at Dublin Castle were duly provided with partners. Now, in India, although it might be deemed desirable that the Viceroy should do everything in his power to influence favourably to us the male portion of the population, he did not believe there was much hope that we could produce an impression on the female portion of it, or that we should gain much by doing so. Everyone, moreover, was aware that, great as was the influence of the ladies in England, it was doubly great in Ireland; and it was, therefore, in his opinion, most desirable that the most eligible men should be selected by the Lord Lieutenant to fulfil those functions, which, hitherto, whether under Whig or Tory Governments, had been performed with much credit to themselves and satisfaction to the country, by those officers whose salaries it was now sought to cut off. For his own
    204
    part, he should certainly vote against the proposed reduction.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, he would now move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £328, the salaries of two aides-de-camp to the Lord Lieutenant. He urged in support of the reduction the trifling nature of the duties, such as occasionally attending the Vice-regal receptions for an hour or two, which those officers had to perform. Their position was very different from that of aides-de-camp in India, who had very arduous duties imposed upon them. But the great objection, in his opinion, to the employment of so many officers as aides-de-camp in Ireland was that they were, in consequence, withdrawn from their regiments, which, as he had already stated, were, as matters now stood, under-officered.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £5,524, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Major O'Beirne.)
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAopposed the reduction of the Vote, and expressed a hope that hon. Members would refrain from nibbling, as they had been doing that evening, at the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant. He could not help thinking that it was scarcely worthy of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) to take the mode which he had just done of endeavouring to prove how much better he understood the matter of Staff appointments than the authorities at the Horse Guards, though, perhaps, he did. He hoped, however, he would abstain from nibbling any further at the small Vote under the consideration of the Committee.
    MR. STACPOOLEwas one of those who regretted exceedingly that the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not abolished, and that one of the Royal Princes did not take up his residence in Ireland instead. But, so long as the Viceroyalty was maintained, he did not

    205
    see how the services of such officers as those whose salaries it was now sought to strike out of the Estimates could properly be dispensed with. As to the argument that officers were kept away from their regiments by being appointed aides-de-camp, and that the Army consequently suffered, he could only say that it was an argument which was equally applicable to the case of a general officer who had an aide-de-camp. It seemed to him, he must confess, to be scarcely worthy of Irish Members especially to quibble about so paltry an item in a Vote which was itself very small.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Stacpoole), he felt more disposed to be influenced by the arguments of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) than by those which he had urged. The hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), he might add, deprecated what he termed nibbling at the Vote; but if some hon. Member did not commence in that way, Votes would never be reduced at all. If hon. Members were dissatisfied with the very small reduction now proposed, it would be easy to meet that objection by moving a larger reduction. If they were not disposed to cut off a shilling, there was no reason why their wishes should not be consulted by asking the Committee to reduce the Vote by hundreds or thousands. He entirely deprecated, however, the attempt to silence those who desired to criticize the Vote, by the allegation that they were merely nibbling at the establishment of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. His own opinion was that it was an establishment which required to be nibbled at very much; and if a Member of that House wished to do his duty, he must not rest content with cutting it only down, but must direct his attention to other Royal and semi-Royal establishments with a similar object—for there were very many of them in whose case it would be well to have the expenditure very much diminished. He hoped, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) would press his Amendments to a Division. It was, he contended, perfectly absurd that the public money should be frittered away in order to enable certain young gentle-
    206
    man in Dublin to make love to the ladies, as if Irish gentlemen could not and would not make themselves amiable to the fair sex without any such adventitious advantages.
    MR. BRUENhappened to know several gentlemen who occupied the position of aide-de-camp in Ireland, and could bear testimony to the fact that some of them were officers of Militia regiments, who had during a great part of the year no regimental duties to perform. It could not fairly be argued, therefore, that their regiments suffered from their attendance at the Vice-regal Court.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought the argument of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) was scarcely a logical one. He seemed to assume that Irish Members wanted to reduce the Vote; but he (Mr. Mitchell Henry), at all events, must beg to enter a most distinct protest against any such reduction. In his opinion, the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as long as it was kept up at all, should be maintained with proper state, because the person who occupied it was the Representative of the Sovereign. He had no wish, therefore, even to nibble at the establishment in question. He believed that the longer we could uphold our Constitution under a Crowned Head, the better would it be for all parts of the United Kingdom. He had no sympathy whatever with Republicanism in any shape or form; and he did not, therefore, agree with his hon. Friend in the expediency of commencing the nibbling process which he appeared to approve. He declined to nibble at the Vote, because he desired to see it passed to the full amount. Entertaining those views, he could not go into the Lobby with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne), who, he might observe, did not seem to be very well informed on the subject; for he evidently was ignorant of the fact that many of the officers attached to the Staff of the Lord Lieutenant did not belong to the regular Army at all, but to the Militia. That being so, their services could not be lost to the Army, as he would lead the Committee to suppose.
    MR. STACPOOLEpointed out that out of the 11 or 12 aides-de-camp in Ireland only 4 were paid, and that their pay amounted to only 10 s. 6d. a-day

    207
    each. He must, therefore, repeat that the sort of quibbling in which some Irish Members had thought fit to indulge that evening was scarcely becoming to them.
    MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) laboured under a great mistake, if he supposed that officers were not kept away from their regiments in consequence of holding the position of aide-de-camp, to the injury of the Service. They were absent from their regiments during the summer months, when their services were most needed. That was a state of things against which he felt it his duty to protest.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 193: Majority 144.—(Div. List, No. 90.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £24,840, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he must oppose the Vote. As hon. Members were aware, the whole of the North of England, including Cumberland, Durham, Northumberland, Westmoreland, and even part of Lancashire, were greatly concerned at the very large amount of disease which had been imported into those counties from Ireland. At one time, a very proper and strict inspection of all cattle from Ireland took place at the ports of entry; but since the middle of last year the whole of the Inspectors on the English side had been removed, and almost immediately after foot-and-mouth disease, as well as pleuro-pneumonia, broke out, and it had been ascertained, from perfectly authenticated cases, that the disease came from Ireland. A system of inspection, it was true, had been established on the Irish side; but he was sure that hon. Members for Ireland felt just as much as he did the extreme importance and the great desirability of not neglecting any precaution for preventing any disease being transhipped, Not only did large quantities of cattle
    208
    come from Ireland which found their way so far as Yorkshire and even Norfolk, but great quantities of breeding stock were now being brought over, and that rendered it all the more necessary that there should be the most rigid system of inspection. Yet the number of Inspectors appointed for the whole of Ireland was six, and two travelling Inspectors, and the whole amount paid them was some £3,000 and odd pounds. The ports at which cattle were imported were Liverpool, Barrow, Whitehaven, Fort Carlisle, Stranraer, and Ardrossan. On some days 1,000 head of cattle were shipped from Belfast alone, in one day, to inspect which but two Inspectors were allowed. From a Return he had recently obtained, he found that, although there were 20 ports in Ireland from which cattle could be shipped, there were but 10 Inspectors in all, including the Chief Inspector and the Assistant Inspector. He admitted that there was a name attached to every port as that of the Inspector; but he contended that the system at present was very incomplete, and he should much prefer the restoration of inspection on the English side. After a good deal of pressure the Government decided that it would be more satisfactory to the Irish exporters if the inspection were on that side, and, consequently, the Inspectors at the ports he had named were removed. At the present time, therefore, the cattle were put straight from the ship on to the railway, and carried into the country. As a result, three cases of foot-and-mouth disease had been traced to Fort Carlisle alone. It was very clear that the inspection was inefficient; but he could not move to increase the Vote, and, therefore, in order to raise the whole question formally and in Order, he would move the reduction of the Vote by £400, so reducing the salary of the Professional Adviser of the Irish Veterinary Department from £800 to £400. It was most important that cattle coming from Ireland should be free from disease, as, of course, if the buyers knew all the cattle were certainly free from any taint, they would give more for them.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £24,440, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries

    209
    and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments."—(Mr. Whitwell.)
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked whether, if the Amendment were put, it would afterwards be competent for him to move the reduction of the Vote by a further sum?
    THE CHAIRMAN, in reply, said, that he would be quite in Order.
    MAJOR NOLANquite understood that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell) was merely nominal. The Cattle Plague Act had only just got into working in Ireland; but a great deal of good was being done, and he could not understand why the hon. Member should advocate inspection on the English instead of on the Irish side of the Channel. Last winter he (Major Nolan) visited several places in England where cattle were disembarked. Formerly, they were unshipped, and left to stand about in open places, very often in the wet, before they could be put into the trains; but the railway people told him that they had not half so much to do, or half so much trouble, that the cattle were at once put on the trains, and were far more comfortable. He had no objection to English inspection as well; but he could not understand why the inspection could not be done just as well in Ireland, and certainly it took place under far more favourable circumstances. He would heartily support the hon. Member in any attempt to improve and perfect the inspection in Ireland; but if he attempted to remove it, he certainly should oppose him, for any such attempt he should regard merely as an effort to revive Protection in disguise.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMsaid, whether the present inspection was satisfactory or not he would not say; but it was certain that the moment the English inspection was removed, there was a great importation of disease into that part of the country. He did not wonder that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Whitwell) had brought forward this subject; for his county, considering its size, contained more valuable cattle than any other in England. In his opinion, the present inspection was not sufficient, and he would heartily support any Motion for increasing the number of Inspectors.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGtrusted the Committee would continue the present system; for, in his opinion, the system of inspection at the port of embarkation was by far the most satisfactory.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought there should be no difference of opinion amongst the Committee that inspection ought to be thoroughly and properly carried out. Considering the present depressed state of agriculture, there was certainly one thing against which the farmers should have protection, and that was the importation of disease. They, none of them, he believed, objected to the inspection in Ireland, and, for his part, he was decidedly of opinion that it ought to be made there; but he did wish to impress upon his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland the importance and the absolute necessity of making the inspection both sufficient and efficient. If disease had come into the North of England from Ireland, the inspection certainly could not be sufficient and efficient now, and he wanted his right hon. Friend to promise them that it would be made so in the future.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYunderstood that some very suitable accommodation was offered for the shipping of cattle at Waterford, and if those offers had been accepted, they certainly would not have had these complaints about Milford Haven. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had availed himself of this offer from Waterford, which was now one of the most important ports for the shipment of cattle in Ireland?
    MR. J. LOWTHERexplained that the Act had only been in operation a few months, and, it could not, therefore, be a matter of surprise if the machinery was not at present quite in working order; but, certainly, until he heard the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell), he was entirely unaware of the existence of these complaints with regard to the importation of disease. He could not ascertain that any reports or complaints had reached the English Veterinary Office, and certainly none had reached his own; but he would certainly give the matter his immediate attention. He believed the point as to the inspection at the various ports was already being inquired into.
    MR. CLARE READwas very glad the attention of his right hon. Friend had been called to the matter, for he remembered perfectly well that it was the opinion of the Committees which inquired into the Cattle Diseases Acts that the Irish Veterinary Department, some years ago, was both undermanned and underpaid. He saw that there had been a very considerable increase in the number of Inspectors; but if the inspection in Ireland was to be of any use at all, it must be very much better than it had been in previous years. He believed that, as a rule, veterinary surgeons did not abound in Ireland, and that a good many had been imported from England; but he had also heard that one or two young vets who had gone over there were so badly paid that they were obliged to come back.
    MR. SHAWbelieved that the inspection at the ports was very efficient; but in the country districts it was very difficult to get Inspectors, from the want of knowledge of diseases of animals which prevailed. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he should make the Irish Veterinary Department a teaching Department. At present, there was no school of veterinary teaching whatever in Ireland. In the County of Cork they were trying to do something in connection with the medical schools which the Government were going to establish, in order to teach veterinary science to the farmers. A very few thousands a-year would establish a school of veterinary science, for the county gentlemen were quite ready to come forward with a supplementary grant. He did not believe the Government could spend money more usefully, and they would also prevent the shipment of diseased cattle. Very often, he believed, such cattle wore sent to the port through pure ignorance of what was the matter with them on the part of their owners.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, he did not wish to press his Motion; but he might say that he was well acquainted with this subject, and was sure that if it were investigated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he would come to the same opinion upon it as he (Mr. Whitwell) had done.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that the question involved in the consideration of the Vote was a very large one, and unless the Government would pass it over, he should move to report Progress.
    MR. J. LOWTHERthought that the Vote had been sufficiently discussed.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that, under those circumstances, it only remained for him to move to report Progress. If they were to go into the matter fully, there would be no possibility of the discussion being finished under two or three hours. Moreover, two or three other Votes would cause a similar discussion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. O'Shaughnessy.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERhoped the hon. and learned Member would not strive to postpone the Vote. It was an annual Vote, and he was not aware of any new matter that had arisen in connection with it. As he had heard no arguments in favour of reporting Progress, he really could not consent to the Motion.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYdeclined to withdraw the Motion.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYobserved, that some Votes following this would also require considerable discussion. Everyone who knew the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was aware that he never took objections unless they were well-founded, and for the purpose of obtaining proper criticism. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had now, in effect, classed the hon. and learned Member amongst those who wilfully obstructed Business; and, therefore, he should support his hon. and learned Friend in his opposition to going further. He thought the time had come when the Committee was well justified in reporting Progress.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYwas firm in his wish to report Progress. He made the Motion for the purpose of recalling the attention of the Committee to the fact that on a previous occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, while objecting to the

    213
    general terms of a Motion he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had brought forward, had stated that it was the intention of the Government to place in that House, in the hands of a responsible Minister, all Irish matters connected with the Treasury. That was a most important subject, and his Motion was to remind the Chief Secretary for Ireland of his promise.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had no wish to carry on the discussion, and that if the House was not in a humour to proceed with the Estimates, he did not wish to press them to do so. He must, however, take exception to what had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. What he originally said had no reference whatever to the Vote before the Committee, but referred to the Vote for the Office of Works. If, however, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and other hon. Members, wished to raise a serious discussion on this and the succeeding Votes, he should have no objection to reporting Progress.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped that the Committee would not proceed further with Supply that night, as they had already been engaged upon it for seven hours, and he thought it was a very fair proposition that Progress should be then reported.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he acceded to the proposition to report Progress; but he only wished now to take the Vote for the Registrar General's Office, which was unopposed.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.
    (16.) £13,109, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Ireland.
    (17.) £18,596, to complete the sum for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow;
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL. [BILL 69–138.]
  (Mr. Secretary Cross, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Matthew Ridley.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 9th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Supplemental Provisions.
  Clauses 22 to 27, inclusive, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 28 (Cost of prosecution of indictable offences dealt with summarily).
  MR. PAGET MR. PAGET moved, as an Amendment, in page 16, line 30, to leave out all after "section" to "shillings," inclusive, in line 32.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSassented to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 29 (Power of the Lord Chancellor to make rules).
  MR. HICKSbegged to move that the clause be struck out. It appeared to him that the rules which the clause directed to be drawn up by the Lord Chancellor should be inserted in the Bill itself. The clause gave power to the Lord Chancellor to make such rules and regulations, and to draw up tables of costs and charges and other matters. It appeared to him that all these matters ought to be inserted in the Bill, so that persons who took up the Act might know what the law was, and that the magistrates who had to carry it out might also be informed of it from the Act itself. He submitted that there was plenty of time between this and the third reading of the Bill to enable the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to prepare a fresh clause which should contain all those regulations. The Bill would then be left in such a form that the law could be at once clearly ascertained from it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Committee would allow the clause to stand. What was proposed by the present clause was merely what was usual under the circumstances, and was the case with the Judicature Act. It was impossible to make these rules by Act of Parliament, and hon. Members should

  215
  remember that they dealt with very trivial matters. Moreover, if inserted in the Act itself, it would be impossible to vary the rules, if there were a necessity for it, without a fresh Act.
  SIR HENRY JAMESthought that, in this case, the rules were too technical for the Committee to enter into them. Still, he thought the House had grown too much into the habit of delegating its powers to others. The Home Secretary had stated that in the Judicature Act power was given to the Judges to frame rules. He might say that in the Act of 1875 the rules were inserted, but that in 1876 a power was given to the Judges to make rules, which power they had exercised in such a manner as to entirely alter the spirit of the Act. In such technical matters as the present Act dealt with, he thought that it was better to give the Lord Chancellor power to make the rules. He noticed that the rules were to come into operation before they were laid upon the Table of the House. That should be altered, so that the House might have an opportunity of discussing the rules before they came into operation.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)observed, that the matter had been fully considered. What had been done arose from the necessity of the case in making some provision for what must be done before Parliament met.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 30 (Power to provide place for holding petty sessions), agreed to, and added to the Bill.

  PART II.
  Amendment of Procedure.
  Clauses 31 to 38, inclusive, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  On the Motion of Mr. ASSHETON CROSS, Clause 39 (Pleadings and forfeitures) verbally amended, and added to the Bill.
  Clauses 40 to 42, inclusive, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clause 43 (Procedure on the execution of distress warrants).
  SIR HENRY JAMES SIR HENRY JAMES moved, as an Amendment, in page 25, line 31, to
  216
  leave out the word "warrant," and insert the words "making of the distress."
  Amendment agreed to; words substituted accordingly.
  MR. GREGORY MR. GREGORY moved, as an Amendment, in page 26, line 5, after the word "distress," to insert the word "wilfully."
  Amendment agreed to; word inserted accordingly.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Clauses 44 to 46, inclusive, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

  PART III.

    DEFINITIONS, SAVINGS, AND REPEAL OF ACTS.
    Special Definitions.
    Clause 47 to 49, inclusive, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    General Definitions.
    Clause 50 agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Application of Acts.
    Clause 51 agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Savings and Construction.
    Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Clause 54 (Application of Act).
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON moved, as an Amendment, in page 32, line 4, to leave out from the word "recovered" to the word "under" in line 7.
    MR. HOPWOODobjected to the omission of those words. A very strong feeling was entertained by all Members of the Select Committee, except right hon. Gentlemen representing Departments, with regard to this matter. He hoped the Committee would pardon him for a moment, while he explained the subject. The Bill, as drawn up, gave the magistrates power in every case, including those relating to Her Majesty's Revenue, supposing they thought fit to exercise their discretion, and even although they were of opinion offences had been committed, to refrain from convicting the person charged. The Bill

    217
    gave the Justices the widest powers for a merciful dispensation of justice. At the present time, when a man was brought before the magistrates, charged with some offence against the Revenue, if the offence were proved, the magistrate had no option but to fine him the full penalty, which usually was very heavy. For some trifling offence against the Inland Revenue or Customs, the penalty would be £100, and the magistrate would have to fine the man that amount, although, if left to himself, he would only have awarded £40 or £50, or some less sum. The whole object of the Bill was addressed to giving the magistrate an option as to the infliction of the maximum amount of penalty, and they were required to use their good sense and rely upon their judgment in altering the penalty below the maximum. They might, however, inflict the maximum penalty, or go down, to the other end of the scale. The Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would have the effect of taking the Inland Revenue and Customs cases in this respect entirely from the power of the magistrates. A magistrate would have no option, but would be bound by the particular Statute under which the penalty was recoverable to commit the injustice of imposing it. He did hope in a Committee like that, where the Magisterial Bench was so numerously represented, a protest would be made against the refusal to trust it with the power to exercise discretion in these matters. No doubt, the answer to this would be that the Revenue must be protected, and that in all cases where the Revenue was concerned the matter should be left in the hands of the Revenue authorities alone. But he would strongly urge that if the magistrates were to have a discretion in such important matters as those dealing with the liberty of the subject, that discretion should be extended to cases where it was most needed, and enable them to have a power to abstain from the infliction of the full amount of penalties which they considered excessive.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONmust press the Committee to strike out the words, the omission of which he had moved. He might say that they were not in the original draft of the Bill, and only put in the amended copy. If the
    218
    words were loft in the Bill, there would be great difficulty in carrying out the working of the Revenue Departments of the country. It would introduce too great an element of uncertainty into the Revenue, if all these cases were left to the decision of the magistrates. Were that done, the supposed uniformity of procedure under the present system would be at once destroyed. Another point was that costs in Excise cases were not recoverable, and he did not think that they should be made so. In every case of an Excise penalty, the duty was included in the penalty, which was fixed at a high amount in reference to the damage which was inflicted upon the Revenue by the offence. The magistrates could not be so conscious of the danger to the Revenue as those who had to deal with it; and it was, therefore, highly desirable to leave those matters entirely in the hands of the Revenue authorities. Then, again, taking the Custom House, there was a system in use which they did not propose to repeal, and there would be two systems at work at the same time under which these amounts might be collected. There would also be one system in use in Scotland, another in Ireland, and another in England. In Scotland and Ireland the Excise officer would be working under the old system, whereas in England the penalties would not be certain, by virtue of the clause. He thought that the danger to the Revenue would be very considerable if the infliction of those penalties was left to the decision of the magistrates; and he therefore hoped that the Committee would not assent to the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport.
    SIR HENRY JAMESobserved, that this question was before the Select Committee, and was fully discussed by them. They determined that the Bill ought to stand as it was now. The Bill was a Government measure, brought in by the Home Secretary; the Committee was now, therefore, asked to reverse both the decision of the Select Committee and of the Government upon this matter. Although they had not been asked to give the magistrates a discretion in such important matters as the liberty of the subject, yet, when they came to offences against the Revenue, they were told that the magistracy could, not be trusted to exercise a proper discretion in those

    219
    matters. The Government would be guilty of great inconsistency, unless it either gave the magistrates the same discretion in all cases, or else struck out the 16th clause altogether. The magistrates should either have the same discretion in all cases, or they should not be allowed to have the power in any case to say—"Although, technically, an offence has been committed, we do not think fit to award any punishment." It was in these Revenue cases, above all others, that the magistrates were continually saying—"We deeply regret that we are compelled to inflict this penalty—it is by virtue of an old Statute, which gives us no option in the matter; you must apply, by memorial, to the Department for a reduction of the penalty." But the Department now came and said—"Reverse the decision of the Select Committee, and give us this provision depriving magistrates of the power given them by the 16th clause in matters of much more importance." Under these circumstances, he trusted his hon. and learned Friend would take a Division on the point.
    MR. DILLWYNwished to give an instance of the necessity for this discretion being exercised by the magistrates in Revenue cases. A case was once brought before him, as a magistrate, of some persons charged with smuggling. A vessel had been boarded, and a seizure made, under somewhat mitigating circumstances. Still, he had no option but to inflict fines amounting to £1,500, a most preposterous sum.
    MR. TORRstated that at Liverpool the necessity for the Bench having some discretion was much felt. He was strongly in favour of the clause remaining in its present shape.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) went a great deal further than he seemed to think. If there were, as he said, danger to the Revenue in giving the magistrates a discretion in these cases, then there was danger in allowing the magistrates to adjudicate at all on Revenue questions. He could not see why, if the magistrates were empowered to adjudicate on Revenue matters, they should not have the same discretion as was given to them in other cases to regulate the punishment. Either they should take away from them
    220
    the right to adjudicate at all, or else they should give them a certain amount of discretion as to the penalties they were to inflict. Otherwise, they were placing the magistrates in an invidious position by forcing them to inflict penalties which in their consciences they knew to be too severe. He hoped the Amendment of the Government would be withdrawn, for the only argument that had been advanced in its favour would go a great deal farther than was proposed.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that the question before the Committee was a very curious one. On all punishable offences the magistrates were allowed by the Bill great latitude; but when they came to touch what were called Revenue questions, no discretion whatever was to be allowed. This was not the first time that the Revenue had been treated in this exceptional manner. He thought that it was fair and right to trust the magistrates in this matter as in others. There was no doubt that very great injustice had frequently been done in those cases, simply because the magistrates were unable to help themselves. They had been obliged to inflict the fines, which they had no power to remit or reduce. If trusted at all, the magistrates should also be trusted in this instance. After the Bill had been so carefully considered by the Select Committee, and this clause bringing Revenue questions within the magistrates' discretion had been inserted by them in the Bill, he thought the Committee should accept it.
    EARL PERCYobserved, that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) had compared this clause with the 16th clause. He regretted that he did not divide the Committee upon that clause; for if he had, he should have voted with him. Speaking with very great diffidence—for he had not had very much experience in these matters—he could not but think that it would be the better course for the hon. and learned Member to raise the objection he did before to the 16th clause upon Report. It seemed to him that it would be better to raise the whole question of the desirability of vesting this discretion in the magistrates by objecting to the 16th clause rather than to take the opinion of the Committee upon a clause which was at variance with the principle of the 16th clause.
    SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYwas in favour of the magistrates having a discretion in all cases.
    MR. COLEremarked that this was not a Bill to increase Her Majesty's Revenue. The Bill professed to be for the purpose of giving the magistrates certain increased jurisdiction in criminal cases; but it seemed that, according to this Amendment, it was to be a Bill to facilitate the collection of Revenue. Unless the hon. Gentleman would consent to the repeal of the 16th clause, he should strongly object to the omission of the words proposed to be left out from this clause.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmust remind hon. Members that the Revenue was an abstraction for which no one felt any sympathy. He believed that there was very widely spread throughout this country a feeling that offences against the Revenue were of a more venial and trivial character than offences against the person or property. It did not surprise him that the Treasury, who had been under the necessity of calling the attention of the Committee to the consequences of the legislation which was now proposed, should find that it was in a minority, as it evidently was, upon this question. After the expression of opinion, first from the Select Committee, and now from the Committee of the House, it would be useless to put hon. Members to the trouble of a Division. At the same time, he was bound to say, as his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had already said, they considered that in taking this step they were putting the Revenue to a by no means inconsiderable inconvenience.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Repeal.
    Clause 55 (Repeal of Acts) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    MR. COLE, in moving the insertion of a new clause, said, its object was to protect Clerks of the Peace who held a freehold office on their appointment. Everyone knew that this Bill, if passed into law and carried into operation, would have the effect of depriving Clerks of the Peace appointed since 1855 of a great number of the fees which they now en-
    222
    joyed. Gentlemen accepting the office of Clerk of the Peace gave up everything else and devoted their whole time to it. Within his knowledge gentlemen belonging to his own Profession had given up practice and accepted offices of this kind under the express understanding that they would continue always to receive certain fees which those offices entitled them to. The effect of the present Bill would be to deprive those gentlemen of a large portion of their income. With regard to the Clerk of the Peace for Middlesex, if the Bill passed in its present form he would lose between £500 and £600 a-year, and those fees would go into the pockets of the Clerk to the Justices. It was the same with regard to other Clerks of the Peace. There was ample precedent for the introduction of a clause protecting the rights of Clerks of the Peace; and he hardly thought it could be the intention of the Government to deprive those gentlemen of so large a portion of their emoluments and to give them no compensation. The clause he should propose would only give them compensation during their lives, and when they died out the payments would cease, as, of course, in all fresh appointments, the gentlemen accepting the offices would take them with no right to anything more than they would then be entitled to under the present Bill; but it was extremely hard that gentlemen who had accepted office under the old system should be deprived of a large portion of their emoluments without compensation. He might say that he had numerous authorities in former Acts where similar provisions had been inserted protecting the interests of those affected. The only Act, however, to which he would refer particularly was 14 & 15 Vict., c. 55, s. 9. He begged to move the insertion of a clause providing for compensation to the Clerks of the Peace who would be deprived of their fees by the Act.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, in his opinion, Clerks of the Peace had no vested right to the fees of which the Act would deprive them. He was aware that in some Acts passed some time ago a clause similar to that moved by the hon. and learned Member had been inserted; but he (Mr. Cross) entirely differed from the reasons put before the Committee for inserting the clause in the present Bill. Although the Bill

    223
    would have the effect of making some cases which were now tried at Quarter Sessions before a jury be in the future disposed of in Petty Sessions, yet, probably, a great many fresh cases would go before a jury at Quarter Sessions, and appeals would be brought in the Quarter Sessions. He might say that those gentlemen had never rendered the slightest account of the fees which they received from various sources. Moreover, in the Bill before the Committee, it was proposed to bring many cases to the Quarter Sessions which were now triable only at Assizes. If, therefore, any compensation were to be given to the Clerks of the Peace for the fees which they would lose under the Bill, it would also be necessary to ask them to disgorge the fresh profits they would make by it. To his mind, Clerks of the Peace had no kind of vested right in these fees. They had a vested interest in their offices to do all the duties that that House imposed upon Quarter Sessions—no more, and no less. If the duties were added, to or diminished it was immaterial, for they had no vested interest in the business put before them.
    SIR HENRY JAMESwould advise his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw his proposed clause, as he would have a much better chance of bringing it up on the Report, if there were a good case in favour of the Clerks of the Peace.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDalso had a clause to the same effect as that already moved, but in different terms. He was quite willing to take the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James), and bring his clause forward upon Report. When both clauses were printed, hon. Members would be better able to judge which clause they preferred.
    MR. COLEsaid, he would withdraw his clause upon that occasion, as that course was considered advisable, and bring it up upon the Report. He was somewhat surprised at the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that Clerks of the Peace were not entitled to compensation. He would point out, with reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, that these gentlemen only wished to obtain compensation for what they would lose by the proposed alteration of the law. Most Clerks of the Peace were now paid by salaries, and very few wore still
    224
    paid by fees. That made the case of those few the stronger, and on their behalf he wished to add to the Act, which would deprive them of a portion of the remuneration they derived from fees, a clause which would, in some way, compensate them for what they lost.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 1.
    MR. PAGET MR. PAGET moved, as an Amendment, in pages 34 and 35, in the heading, to leave out the words "children or."
    MR. HICKSdid not think that at that late hour they should be called upon to go into these Schedules, which proposed to extend the power of the magistrates to a much greater length than at present. He would move to report Progress.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSStrusted that the Committee would go on and finish the Bill. Every question could be raised upon Report, and he did not think that any member of the magistracy would say that the Bill placed anything in their hands which they were not competent to deal with. He had been asked the object of the Bill; and he might say, briefly, that its object was to enable the magistrates to dispose of numbers of those petty cases which now went before Quarter Sessions.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTobserved, that the magistrates now had the power given them of dealing with many cases summarily by penalty; and it was a question which he thought ought to be carefully considered and enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary how far magistrates ought to go in that direction. The first line of the Schedule was somewat indefinite in giving jurisdiction to impose a penalty for the offence of simple larceny when, in the opinion of the magistrate, the value of the property stolen did not exceed 40 s. He supposed that by that was meant such cases as an old woman stealing a bundle of faggots; but he considered that it should be made more explicit.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSstated that the magistrates would still have a discretion to send cases of simple larceny to trial.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out accordingly.
    Schedule agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    Remaining Schedule agreed to, and added to the Bill.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 156.]
(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson, Mr. Gerard Noel.)
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING ACT (1865) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 156.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. DILLWYNthought the House should have some explanation with regard to the great increase in the cost of these buildings.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that the Bill had been introduced to remove certain difficulties that had been experienced in carrying out the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865. The cost of the buildings was originally estimated at £1,500,000, and that sum was nearly paid by the money voted by Parliament at the time. Afterwards, it was to be paid to the extent of £20,000 by the estimated value of the then existing Courts; partly from a fund belonging to the Chancery suitors, and partly by a tax to be levied on the suitors using the building. Portions of the buildings were now in use, and it became necessary to levy the fees for the use of the building. The fusion of the Court of Chancery in the High Court of Justice had done away with the accuracy of the returns supplied originally, and there was some difficulty as to whether the fees that were now to be raised would have to be levied on a portion of the suitors only, or upon all using the new Courts. The Bill was to remedy these difficulties, and especially those that had been found to arise from the Act of 1865.
  MR. WHITWELLremarked, that the Bill gave power to the Lord Chancellor, by his own will, without laying the rules he proposed before Parliament, to raise money by increasing the fees of suitors. That was a very great power to be given, for anyone to have absolute discretion over these fees without consulting Parliament; and it seemed to
  226
  him, therefore, that the Bill involved a principle of considerable magnitude.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL.— [BILL 93.]
(Mr. Wheelhouse, Sir Andrew Lusk, Mr. Scott, Mr. Isaac, Mr. Benjamin Williams.)
BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN (EDUCATION) BILL.— [BILL 93.]

  CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now taken into consideration."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
  MAJOR NOLAN, who had an Amendment upon the Paper to the effect, "That it be considered upon, this day six months," said, he was willing, if the House would permit him, to withdraw it, and allow the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Wheelhouse) to forward the Bill a stage that night.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that as an Amendment to the Motion stood on the Order Book, the half-past 12 Rule absolutely precluded the Bill being taken.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MATTERDALE COMMON) BILL.
On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the regulation of certain Lands forming part of Matterdale Common, and situated in the parish of Grey-stoke, in the county of Cumberland, and the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of certain other Lands forming the remainder of the same Common, and situated in the same parish, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 171.]

INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (REDMOOR AND GOLBERDON COMMONS) BILL.
On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the inclosure of certain lands known as Redmoor and Golberdon Commons, situate in the parish of South Hill, in the county of Cornwall, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 172.]

INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (MALTBY LANDS) BILL.
On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the inclosure of certain lands situated in the township of Maltby and hamlet of Stone, both in the parish of Maltby, in the county of York, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 173.]

INCLOSURE PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST STAINMORE COMMON) BILL.
On Motion of Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY, Bill to confirm the Provisional Order for the regulation of certain Bands forming part of East Stainmore Common, and situated in the township of East Stainmore, in the parish of Brough, in the county of Westmoreland, and the Provisional Order for the Inclosure of certain other Lands forming the remainder of the same Common, and situated in the same parish, in pursuance of a Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, ordered to be brought in by Sir MATTHEW RIDLEY and Mr. Secretary CROSS.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 174.]
House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Statute Law Revision (Ireland) (80).
Second Reading—Racecourses (Metropolis) (45); Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Castle Douglas) * (68).
Third Reading—Land Drainage Provisional Order (Bispham, &c.) * (65), and passed.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE LATEST TELEGRAMS.

  OBSERVATION.
  EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient that I should read the following telegram which has been received at the Colonial Office to-day:—
  "Telegram from Mr. Hampden Willis, Secretary to the High Commissioner, Cape Town, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated St. Vincent, 12th, 10.40 a.m., received Colonial Office, 12th, 1.50 p.m.:—April 27.—High Commissioner, at Pretoria, telegraphs that Boers' Camp broke up on the 18th inst., and all have dispersed quietly to their homes. The conference between High Commissioner and Boers' Committee at Erasmus Farm took place April 12th, lasted five hours and a half, and passed off in perfectly friendly manner."

RACECOURSES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
(The Viscount Enfield.)
RACECOURSES (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  (NO. 45.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the measure was promoted as a protection to local residents and in the interests of the Turf. The measure had been before the public for the last three years, and during its passage through the House of Commons had received the support of Her Majesty's Government, and more especially of those who were connected with the Home Office, and who were, therefore, most responsible for good order within the Metropolitan area. The late Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), and Sir Matthew White Ridley, the present Under Secretary, spoke and voted, in favour of the second reading when the Bill was in the House of Com-

  101
  mons; and on March 6, 1879, the Secretary of State (Mr. Cross) himself in Committee said—
  "He only spoke in the interest of public order, when he said that had not people seen that these races were conducted in an improper manner the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) would not have brought forward the Bill. But the races in question had not been conducted with proper decency."
  He could have wished that the charge of the Bill had been intrusted to some Member of their Lordships' House who was also a member of the Jockey Club, as an earnest of their desire for reforming and purifying the great national pastime of horse-racing; and, certainly, the abuse with which the Bill dealt was one which required immediate remedy. But although the Bill might be justly described as miserably inadequate to securing these purposes, still it did something in the way of affording protection to the peaceable and orderly inhabitants of the suburban districts, whose retirement was now continually infested by the disreputable mobs who attended the gate-money meetings. After the passing of this Bill, horse races within 10 miles of London, unless licensed, would be unlawful. He did not think the area was wide enough; and he would be prepared to support any noble Lord who might propose, in Committee, to extend it to 12 or 14 miles. He had been told that the Bill interfered with the rational amusement of a great multitude of excellent and well-conducted people. So far from that being the case, the Bill enabled the Justices at the Michaelmas Quarter Sessions to grant licences at their discretion on the application of any person, being the owner or occupier of any open or inclosed land, desirous of obtaining a licence for horse-racing therein. The application was to be made and disposed of in the same manner as applications for licences for places for dancing and music. The magistrates would hear the application and the evidence in its favour, and any opposition that might be offered; and if the applicant were of good character, the place suitable, and the arrangements were such as would secure that the proceedings would be conducted in an orderly manner, and the inhabitants of the neighbourhood favourable, they would grant the licence; or they might withhold it
  102
  if not satisfied. Those of their Lordships who were members of the Jockey Club were well aware of the nature and character of gate-meetings; but for the benefit of those who were not, he would give a brief description of them. A sporting publican who rented a few acres of grass got up these races, built a stand, erected booths, and charged a toll on those who came upon the ground. A mob of low betting-men, welshers, sharpers, roughs, and pickpockets were attracted; and the unhappy animals which were engaged in these contests were of such a character and condition that probably no cab or van proprietor would give £25 for the winner of the so-called "Great Swindleham and Milkham Handicap." With such well-established and interesting meetings as Epsom and Ascot within an easy distance of town, where the best horses and the most interesting contests were witnessed, such mushroom gatherings as Kingsbury, West Drayton, Croydon, Eltham, Bromley, Streatham, Enfield, and others, were not needed in the interests of true sport. He confessed he had heard with feelings of great regret that "the Turf Parliament" were hostile to the measure, and were not disposed to give the Bill a second reading. He wished to speak with all respect of the Jockey Club as a court of honour; but in these days private individuals and corporate bodies with irresponsible power were amenable to the public for their actions, and if their actions did not come up to the public requirements they must expect hostile criticism. He feared that that was the case with the Jockey Club at this moment. What had that Turf Parliament done for the sport of racing during the last 10 years? On this subject he would call a distinguished witness into court, one who was now no more, but whose name was yet honoured in the land—the late Earl of Derby. Ten years ago, Lord Derby addressed his celebrated letter to Sir Joseph Hawley, and in it was this remarkable passage—
  "St. James's Square, May 28, 1869.—I cannot conceal my opinion that your resolutions deal with only one of the vices which, as it seems to mo, are yearly lowering the character of the Turf. I know that some persons consider the multiplication of races and of starters a sign of its success. I look on them as the very opposite, and I should hail with satisfaction the disappearance from the Calendar of one-half of

  103
  the present meetings. I take it that the deterioration of the Turf in public estimation, of which there is no doubt, is mainly owing to the fact that the majority of horses are now in the possession of men who run for profit and not for sport, who care nothing for the animal horse, who cannot afford to wait for a return of their money, but who, in the language of the Manchester school, prefer 'a nimble ninepence to a slow shilling,' and in whose hands a wretched animal, especially if not quite so wretched as he is thought, is as valuable as one of a high class, if not more so. I am satisfied that unless the Jockey Club apply themselves vigorously to check the acknowledged abuses of the Turf, not only will there be an increasing secession of men of character and station, and an increasing accession of those who have neither, but they themselves will lose ground in public estimation, and public opinion will ere long demand and enforce a sweeping suppression of abuses by external authority."
  And what were the evils on which Lord Derby particularly animadverted? First, early two-year-old racing; second, multiplication of inferior race meetings throughout the country; third, encouragement given to short races, half-mile scrambles, which were no test of the real merits of a horse. He (Viscount Enfield) would now add two other evils with which the Jockey Club had not grappled—the sanctioning play or pay betting for handicaps—one of the most fruitful sources of fraud and robbery, and last, but not least, the prevalent fashion of allowing horses to run under assumed names for their owners or co-proprietors. This last had done more to deteriorate the character of the Turf during the last few years than anything else. During the 10 years since Lord Derby wrote his letter, one solitary measure of reform was passed by the Jockey Club—and that was, he believed, rescinded again within 18 months. He alluded to Colonel Forester's excellent proposal not to allow two-year-olds to run before the 1st of May. The Jockey Club, no doubt, expected that the gentlemen who accepted the office of steward at these meetings would see that they were conducted with decorum. But reliance on these stewards was nugatory—he should like to see the gentleman who valued either his character or his watch who would attend such meetings. Assumed names were a fertile source of fraud, as the public did not know who were the real proprietors of the horses which ran. In former days the owners of racehorses had names which, in public estimation,
  104
  were synonymous with honourable conduct and straightforward sportsmanship—such names as Bedford, Grafton, Glasgow, Rutland, Portland, Verulam, Jersey, Eglinton, Peel. These were names that gave credit to the Turf. But now, unfortunately, The Racing Calendar contained names of the most irresponsible and grotesque kind—Mr. Flutter, Mr. Micawber, Mr. Ruff, Mr. Good, Mr. Mask, Mr. Somersetshire, Mr. Squills, and many others. They might represent either a distinguished capitalist in the City, or a so-called financing agent, or a retired valet—an opulent gin-distiller possibly, or a station-master on one of their lines of railway—possibly even some young Conservative Member of Parliament, or an aspiring "detrimental," of whom a modern poet of society had given them a very graphic description—
  "His partner's delight and the chaperon's fear,
  He's voted a trump among men;
  His father allows him two hundred a-year,
  And he'll bet you a thousand to ten."
  The public complained that the Jockey Club endorsed these names, if not with actual approbation, yet with toleration, for they received a fee of 25 guineas for every such name which was registered; and if his noble Friend the senior Steward of the Jockey Club felt any qualms of conscience, he might rub his hands, while he thought of this tax, and say with the old Roman financier, "Non olet." In contrast to our Turf senators, what had the French Jockey Club done? In future no horses would, be allowed to compete at any of the meetings held under the Jockey Club in France that had run at a meeting organized as a private speculation, and where a special tax was levied on the list-keepers or ready-money betters. He would sum up his remarks by asking their Lordships to read the Bill a second time. He did so as a magistrate and ratepayer in the Metropolitan county. He urged its acceptance in the interests of good order, and as some slight security for the protection of the householders, who were injuriously affected by the annual recurrence many times over of these Saturnalia; but he did so especially in the interests of the old national pastime of horse-racing. Though he seldom now attended races, and scarcely ever betted, no member of the Jockey Club

  105
  took a livelier interest in the national pastime than himself—in the various old-established meetings, the "form" shown by horses, and the manner in which the various crosses of breeding told—and no one would more rejoice than he should were the Jockey Club to bestir themselves in earnest in endeavouring to sweep away the hideous abuses which now existed, and by drastic measures of reform render to racing once again the honourable appellation it formerly deservedly enjoyed of being "the sport of Kings."
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Viscount Enfield.)
  LORD ST. LEONARDS, who was nearly inaudible, said, that he regarded the proposed legislation as an unjustifiable attempt to interfere with the amusements of the humbler class, while it left those of the richer and more leisurely classes untouched. Why should they attempt to suppress such meetings as Kingsbury and. Croydon, and leave out Kempton and Sandown? He would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months.")—(The Lord St. Leonards.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: I shall give my cordial support to the Motion of the noble Lord who has moved the rejection of the Bill. My noble Relative who introduced the measure (Viscount Enfield) dislikes those small meetings which take place in the neighbourhood of London. I can assure him that none in this House or the country can have a greater dislike to them than I have. I take a great interest in the national pastime of racing. I think these small meetings have done an infinity of harm, and I hope to see them put a stop to, and anything I can do either in or out of this House to carry out that view will certainly be done. My noble Relative stated that the Bill which he asked your Lordships to read a second time was miserably inadequate to the object for which it was intended, and that was the only thing he told us about the Bill. We have not, from the beginning to the end of his speech—anything to let us know whether the Bill consists of one clause
  106
  or 50, or what any of these clauses are intended to enact. My noble Friend was bound to tell us how he intended to do away with what he calls this injury to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. Not only did he not tell us how the Bill would effect its purpose, but he avowed his anxiety to extend its provisions. My noble Friend appears to have run away into a sort of lecture to the Jockey Club, and commented severely on the countenance they had given to persons who ran horses under assumed names. But when he spoke of the assumed names under which horses were entered, he forgets that anyone can ascertain who these assumed names represent. I quite agree, however, with my noble Friend that the use of assumed and grotesque names is not right, and that such names are objectionable. My noble Friend contrasts the names of former days with the names connected with the Turf now; but I cannot agree with him that ail the racing of the present day is done under assumed names. I will read him a few modern names, and I doubt if he will have a single word to say against them. What does he say to these names—the Duke of Westminster, the Earl of Stamford, the Earl of Rosebery, the Earl of Rosslyn, the Earl of Wilton, the Duke of Hamilton, Lord Sefton, Lord Falmouth, Lord Vivian, the Earl of Cork, Lord Fitzwilliam, and last, but not least in the list, the Marquess of Hartington, to whom, I think, my noble Relative will give credit for high principle? The assumed names are registered, and they can easily be ascertained; and on the ground of running in assumed names my noble Relative has not made out his case. My noble Relative has given no reasons for the second reading of the Bill; I will endeavour to show why the Bill should not be read a second time. In the first place, I think it is an unnecessary Bill, because the Stewards of the Jockey Club and the magistrates have the power to put an end to these meetings, and they do put a stop to them. Another reason is that the Bill is too despotic and tyrannical in its character. Why should the scope of this Bill stop within 10 miles of the Metropolis? My noble Relative is prepared to extend the area to 12 or 14 miles. But why stop at 12 or 14 miles? It is said that these meetings are a nuisance to the inhabitants of the Metropolis. But

  107
  London is not the only large city in the country. What are you going to do with Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester? You cannot keep to 10, 12, or 14 miles; if this Bill passes it must be made to apply to the whole country, and if so, you are asking for one of the most tyrannical measures that ever went out of this House. To show what are the powers of the Jockey Club in respect of such meetings, I will quote one of the rules under the head "Management of Meetings and Powers of Stewards"—
  "Every meeting must be advertised in The Racing Calendar. The advertisements must state that the meeting is to be subject to the rules of racing, and must state, as soon as practicable, the days on which the meeting is to begin and end, and the names of two or more persons as stewards, and of the judge, starter, and clerk of the scales. No meeting shall be advertised in The Racing Calendar unless the money added be not less than 300 sovereigns per day."
  If any meeting takes place without being advertised in The Racing Calendar, the horses which run at it cannot run at any other meeting throughout the country, and the jockeys are not allowed to ride at any course under the rules of the Jockey Club; and this has practically the effect of putting an end to meetings of an objectionable character. In the Memorial presented to my noble Friend the Prime Minister by the Stewards of the Jockey Club, and which is dated Newmarket, May 2, 1879, there is this statement—
  "At meetings of the Jockey Club, held on the 16th and 30th of April, the Racecourses Licensing Bill was brought under consideration, and it was unanimously decided that the Stewards should be requested to place Her Majesty's Government in possession of the facts of the case as regards the powers claimed by the Jockey Club in respect of the licensing of race meetings and the manner in which they have exercised them. In accordance with this direction, the Stewards of the Jockey Club beg to represent to Her Majesty's Ministers that, as far as they are able to gather from brief reports of debates in the House of Commons, where this question seems to have been subjected to a very limited amount of discussion, it would appear that the Bill has been mainly advocated upon the alleged ground that the Jockey Club does not possess the power to deal with meetings held within the contemplated area; and, further, that if it did possess that power, it has hitherto neglected to take the requisite action. We would bring before the consideration of Her Majesty's Government that, in 1876, at a special meeting of the Jockey Club, it was resolved to revise the rules of racing, and that a fresh code of rules came into operation in January, 1877.
  108
  By these rules the Stewards of the Jockey Club have the full power of preventing any meeting taking place by refusing to advertise it in their official Calendar ('Rules of Racing,' Part 2, Rule 4); and as regards the alleged inaction of the Jockey Club, it should be noted that during the past year the notice of its Stewards having been called to certain irregularities which had occurred at one of the race-meetings held within the radius mentioned in the Bill, instructions were given to Messrs. Weatherby, the publishers of the official Calendar, by the said Stewards, which would have prevented the said meeting being held unless satisfactory guarantees were given for its proper conduct. No application was made to Messrs. Weatherby, and no race-meeting was held on that course last year. The Stewards of the Jockey Club further called the attention of the stewards of race meetings to the necessity of acting with authority in their capacity by the following notice, which appeared in The Calendar, No. 25, of last year:—'The Stewards of the Jockey Club beg to call the attention of gentlemen undertaking the office of stewards of race meetings to the responsibility which they incur for the proper management of such meetings, and express their hope that gentlemen will not accept the office unless they intend to be present, or are fully satisfied as to the arrangements for the conduct of the meeting.' And lastly, the Stewards of the Jockey Club require a guarantee from all promoters of race meetings that adequate arrangements be made for the maintenance of order during the meeting. Since the action of the Stewards in these matters, the Metropolitan meetings have diminished from eight advertised in 1877 to two which have been hitherto advertised for this year. They humbly submit, therefore, that the Jockey Club, through their Stewards, have not been idle in the exercise of their authority, not only with regard to racing matters, but also as to the maintenance of order; and, further, that the said Stewards are ever prepared to entertain and act upon any suggestion with which the Secretary of State for the Home Department might favour them."
  That the Jockey Club have power to stop these races is manifest by their having done so in the cases of West Drayton, Kingsbury, and Streatham. These are cases in which the Jockey Club have acted; and I have no doubt their rules will be more stringently carried out; in fact, so strictly have those rules been carried out, that the number of Metropolitan meetings has been diminished from eight, advertised in 1877, to two this year. As to West Drayton—where the stand was burnt down—that meeting has been put a stop to by the Jockey Club, an inconvenient practice of neglecting to pay over the stakes having arisen, and the Club insisting that before the meeting is advertised in The Calendar the money must be paid. That meeting has not

  109
  taken place since; neither has the Streatham, for the reason that they have been unable to advertise in The Calendar, in all probability through being unable to guarantee the 300 sovs. a-day added money. The Kingsbury meeting has also come to an end, seemingly because they could not obtain stewards of character and responsibility. Under these circumstances, nothing calls for legislative interference. Moreover, the magistrates have power to refuse licences to the sporting publicans on whose property these meetings generally take place. My noble Friend has spoken of gate-meetings in terms of reprobation. Did he apply his condemnation to all gate-meetings, without exception?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Not to Good-wood.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: If I am not under a delusion, I have seen my noble Friend at the Goodwood meetings.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: You never invited me there.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: If the noble Viscount had been at Goodwood, he would never have made the remarks. Gate-meetings are not all to be held up to public reprobation. Does the noble Viscount consider San-down one of those gate-meetings? Does he consider that Sandown is not a respectable meeting, and that it is not attended by respectable people? Does not the noble Viscount know that persons of the very highest society, male and female, attend this meeting; and is it to be supposed they would do so, if they were characterized by any proceedings which call for magisterial interference? On the other hand, the magistrates have power to suppress objectionable gate-meetings by refusing the necessary licences for them. My noble Friend has quoted a letter written by the late Lord Derby to Sir Joseph Hawley; but I do not see how the authority of Lord Derby can be dragged into this question, seeing that that letter has reference to handicapping and running young horses, and has nothing whatever to do with gate-meetings. The noble Viscount has carefully refrained from explaining the provisions of the Bill. I will now do so. As I have already stated, and as my noble Friend has also stated, if the principle of this Bill were conceded, that you are to give magistrates the power of putting
  110
  down these races because they are a nuisance to the ratepayers, I do not see how you can confine the Bill to within 10 miles of London. Why are persons living outside that limit not to have the same protection as those living inside that limit? If you once pass this Bill, and say that magistrates are to decide whether the meetings are to take place or not, it must be extended further. What does the Bill propose? The 1st clause declares what is horse-racing; it says that any race in which any horse runs in competition with any other horse, or against time, for any prize, bet, or wager, and at which more than 20 persons are present, is a horse race. The 2nd clause declares any horse race unlawful which shall take place within a radius of 10 miles from Charing Cross, unless in a place duly licensed, as provided by the Act; and the 5th clause imposes a penalty of £10, or imprisonment for two months, on any person who shall take part in any horse race in any open or inclosed land or place for which a licence has not been obtained. The 6th clause declares that owners and occupiers of ground where unlicensed horse races take place shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and on conviction shall be punishable by a fine not less than £5 nor exceeding £25, or by imprisonment for not less than one month nor more than throe. Now, if you pass this Bill, and extend it to the whole country, what will be the effect of it? I ask your Lordships to imagine the case of a number of gentlemen staying in a country house for the purpose of hunting; there may be a dispute over the dinner-table that one horse is not so fast as another horse; and if, on the following day, those gentlemen run their two horses in the park for a bet of a sovereign, and there are more than 20 persons present—which, in all probability, there would be, looking on—why, they would be liable to fine and imprisonment. The gentlemen who had adjourned from the dinner-table to the park would become liable to a penalty of £10 or two months' imprisonment each; and their host, the owner of the park, would render himself liable to a penalty of £25 or three months' imprisonment. I think it likely that if this Bill pass no occurrences of that nature will hereafter take place in any gentleman's park. Then, as to licences—the licence, when obtained, is

  111
  to run for 12 months from Lady Day. So that any person requiring a licence must make his application at the Michaelmas Sessions preceding, or go without for 18 months. I am as much opposed to these small meetings as is my noble Relative himself. I am equally anxious to uphold the national pastime which has flourished in this country for so long a period; but I think I have fully shown that this Bill is unnecessary and would be tyrannical; and, for these reasons, I think myself fully justified in supporting the Amendment.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that when, last week, his noble Friend (Viscount Enfield) asked him to support this Bill, he told him he was very sorry he could not do so, and that, on the contrary, he should oppose it. The opinion which he entertained when he made that statement to his noble Friend was based on three points—first, the geographical limit to which the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had alluded; next, that the Bill seemed to be an invasion on the position of the Jockey Club; and, thirdly, that it would be opposed by the Government, who, in matters connected with the police of the Metropolis, had superior means of information to that which private persons could have. But since then he had had some conversation with persons of more knowledge on the subject than himself, and he had attentively listened to the speeches delivered that evening; and the result was that he felt constrained to support the Bill, notwithstanding the appeal of the noble Duke. With regard to the geographical limit, the noble Duke urged that it was impossible to apply to the Metropolitan district regulations which were not to be extended to other parts of the country. Was not that rather a new doctrine? Were there not powers vested in the Metropolitan magistrates and in the Metropolitan Police which were entirely distinct from those exercised in other great towns in the country? With regard to the Jockey Club, nobody was more anxious to support the authority of that body than he was. He thought that in one instance in their Lordships' House he had somewhat conspicuously supported the Jockey Club. His noble Friend the Chairman of Committees proposed a Bill regulating the weights to be used for racing; and he (Earl Granville)
  112
  opposed it in the strongest manner he could on the ground that horse-racing was a national pastime and had taken great hold on the people of this country; that it was necessarily important, therefore, to have some controlling power over racing, and that it would be very difficult indeed to substitute a better one than the Jockey Club as it then stood. The Jockey Club now was not quite in the position in which it was then. He pointed out to the House that at that time the Jockey Club included not only landowners, Generals, and Admirals, but also two Privy Councillors and seven members who had been Cabinet Minister's, of whom two had twice been Prime Ministers. Now, at present, he was afraid the Jockey Club could not claim as a member either the present or the late Prime Minister. The noble Duke had read a list of some of the most prominent members of the Jockey Club, and they wore unquestionably persons in whom one would have the greatest confidence both for judgment and for knowledge of this particular subject. When he read the list, beginning with the Duke of Westminster and ending with the Marquess of Hartington, and including other distinguished patrons of the racecourse—among them his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Wilton)—it occurred to him (Earl Granville) at once that he had never heard or seen in any newspaper of any one of those distinguished persons being present or running horses at Metropolitan gate-meetings. He thought that in anything with regard to racing there was no more competent body than the Jockey Club; but in this matter there wore other considerations. He was told that at one of the suburban meetings a Newmarket official absolutely refused to go on with his duties any longer because he remarked that the jockeys delayed starting their horses until they got a fleet messenger informing them who was to win. Such questions as these there could be no doubt that the Jockey Club was the most competent authority to deal with. But when there arose the question of nuisance and of peace and order in the Metropolis, it appeared to him that the Jockey Club was not so good a body to control these places as the general body of magistrates. The noble Duke had given his opinion upon the Jockey Club Memorial. As he understood the matter

  113
  the proposal in the Jockey Club was that they should petition, against the Bill; but there was a great difference of opinion, and the result was a compromise—namely, the Memorial was content with setting out the facts, and leaving the Government to deal with the question. With regard to the Government, it was said they were opposing the Bill, and that there had been "a whip" for the purpose. The noble Duke had given as a reason that the Bill was tyrannical and unnecessary, and that if it passed it would have to be extended to the rest of the country. But in what respect had the measure been changed since the time when it was supported in the House of Commons, not merely by an individual Member of the Government, but by the Home Secretary and his two Under Secretaries, who spoke in the strongest terms in favour of and voted for the Bill? Those Members of the Government might be supposed to be in possession of good information on such a subject; and when he found them supporting the measure as one calculated to effect the object for which it was promoted, he thought he was justified in giving it his support in their Lordships' House.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, I am not concerned to deal very closely with the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) who leads this side of the House, because it dealt chiefly with some mysterious agencies that had operated on his own mind that I did not precisely understand, and it dealt also with the more mysterious policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this Bill, which I still less can comprehend. I have observed this singularity in this debate—that only one speech has dealt with the measure now before the House, and that was not the speech of the noble Viscount who brought it in. He was good enough to express his views on a vast variety of subjects, with a good deal of wit and humour that commended itself to the House, and which everyone must wish to compliment; but I must be allowed, incidentally, to state that this is not a Bill for dealing with assumed names or post-betting, or the delinquencies of the Jockey Club; and as the noble Viscount's speech dealt almost entirely with these topics, I failed to gather any special enlightenment. Agreeing fully, as I
  114
  do, with his views about post-betting and assumed names, I am not disposed to say that the Jockey Club or owners of racehorses yield in any respect to the owners of former days, and I confess I have investigated that subject from the records of the past. I claim to speak on this Bill with some little knowledge. I approach it from various points of view—as a member of the Jockey Club, as an owner of racehorses, as one who goes to races—which the noble Viscount does not—and as a suburban resident; and I think that from all these four points of view the Bill may be regarded as one that does not deserve the support of your Lordships' House. There are two views, of course, as regards any Bill dealing with racing—there is the racing point of view, and in this case there is the point of view that regards the amenities of Metropolitan recreations. As regards racing, I do not suppose any human being pretends that the improvement of the breed of horses, which is supposed to be the object of racing, is furthered in any respect by the gate-meetings with which you are dealing; and, in a racing point of view, this Bill may be regarded as one which cannot affect racing as a national pastime. But, in the second place, when I come to the regulations that are to protect Metropolitan inhabitants against these "incursions of barbarians" of whom the noble Viscount speaks, he ought to remember—and that is the ground on which I feel myself compelled to vote against this Bill—that there are already three efficient methods of dealing with the matter. There is, first, the Jockey Club. I quite agree that the Stewards of the Jockey Club have been inert in this matter. There I fully admit the argument of the noble Viscount; and except they take more care for the future of these matters, as they are pledged to do, some other means must be resorted to. In the second place, the magistrates can refuse a licence, and that has been found operative; and, in the third place, the Commissioners of Police can refuse the protection of the police. If the noble Viscount thinks this Bill will furnish any more effectual means than these three of putting down these meetings, I do not think he has shown them to us. The fact is that the matter which your Lordships have to consider is one apart from racing. I do not think lovers of racing

  115
  would have cause of regret if all these gate-money meetings ceased to exist; but I am not unnaturally jealous of the amusements of a free people being tampered with by small measures of this description. You do not know where you are to limit them. The noble Viscount who moved the second reading says no unlicensed racecourse should be allowed within 15 or 16 miles. When you get to 16 miles, you touch the historic race of this country—the Derby. That would place it in the power of the local magistrates of Epsom to put down that race at any moment they may see fit. That would be the effect if the Bill were so amended. I came to this House somewhat wavering as to the expediency of opposing this measure. I confidently anticipated hearing strong arguments in its favour; but every argument which I have heard tends directly against the Bill, and I must record my vote with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had urged as an argument against this Bill that it was impracticable to fix a limit within which it was to operate, and said that if such a measure was passed at all it must be applicable to the whole country. But he (the Earl of Morley) asked whether it had not in countless cases been found perfectly easy to define the exact space to which an Act of Parliament should apply? And why, therefore, should any special difficulty be experienced in the present case? This was not a question of racing or improving the breed of horses—it was really a question in the cause of law and order. The race-meetings to which it referred caused the dregs of the Metropolis to invade quiet neighbourhoods, and were, therefore, productive of great inconvenience to the inhabitants of those neighbourhoods. the Bill did not propose to prohibit these meetings absolutely; what it provided was that when a meeting of this kind was desired it should be necessary to satisfy Boards of Quarter Session that they would be respectably and quietly managed. He trusted that the Bill would be passed, and that the abominable meetings which were held in some quarters at the present time would be put an end to.
  LORD RIBBLESDALEsaid, he would venture to say that these gate-meetings were attended by a large number of the
  116
  very persons who were stated in the Bill to object to them. The noble Viscount who had introduced the Bill stated that magistrates at Quarter Sessions, before granting a licence for a race meeting, would have to satisfy themselves that the horses that would be engaged were of the highest class. He thought it would be adding very much to the onerous labours of magistrates to require them to perform such a duty as that. He knew that meetings such as these in the suburbs of London were very objeetionable, and he should, therefore, vote for the second reading.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALEthought that the subject-matter of the Bill would be better left to the consideration and care of the Jockey Club.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONexplained that the Stewards of the Jockey Club were willing to act upon any suggestion that might be made by the Home Secretary on this subject. The matter had been discussed at a meeting of the Jockey Club, but no division was taken.
  LORD ABERDAREasked whether, supposing these meetings were held in defiance of the Jockey Club and the rules laid down in reference to the class of horses run and the conduct of the jockeys who rode them, what power would the Club have over the meetings?
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: the magistrates have power to refuse to license meetings irregularly conducted, and the Jockey Club would refuse to allow any advertisement of these races in The Racing Calendar. The Jockey Club have the power of preventing horses from being run and jockeys from riding at all race-meetings held under their rules; and the refusal to insert the advertisement of irregular meetings in The Racing Calendar would, consequently, have the practical effect of putting a stop to such meetings altogether.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEobserved, that there were hurdle and other races which did not come under the jurisdiction of the Jockey Club, but which also needed to be controlled.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND and GOEDONsaid, that the Grand National Hunt Committee would act in such cases in accordance with the course adopted by the Jockey Club.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, it was clear, from the discussion which

  117
  had taken place, and from the speech of the noble Duke opposite, that the Jockey Club had the power, if they had the will, to apply a remedy for the abuses complained of. He came down to the House intending to vote for the second reading of the Bill; but after the statements made as to the proposed action of the Jockey Club, he did not think that the Bill was necessary. He believed that his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Rosebery) had won a race at Kingsbury.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, that was quite a mistake.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the noble Earl was himself in America at the time; but he believed that he won a race at Kingsbury with a horse named Halifax.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, his noble Friend was misinformed.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the real point at issue was whether the meetings proposed to be dealt with under the Bill could be controlled by the Stewards of the Jockey Club, and he could not doubt they would be.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONobserved, that the noble Duke opposite had said the Jockey Club were anxious to carry out what the Home Secretary desired in the matter. What the Home Secretary desired was that the Bill should pass.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, that after the tone of the debate and the amount of support offered to the Bill, he preferred not accepting any vague promises on behalf of the racing authorities, but should go to a Division, and any Amendments might then be considered in Committee.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 84; Not-Contents 57: Majority 27.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Airlie, E.

  Cairns, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Amherst, E.

  Annesley, E.

  York, L. Archp.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Belmore, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Brownlow, E.

  Grafton, D.

  Camperdown, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Cowper, E.

  De La Warr, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Derby, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Fitzwilliam, E.

  Ripon, M.

  Granville, E.

  118

  Harrowby, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Kimberley, E.

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

  Lucan, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Minto, E.

  Morley, E. [Teller.]

  Greville, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Howard de Walden, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Keane, L.

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

  Cardwell, V.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

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

  Hardinge, V.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Monson, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  London, L. Bp.

  Northwick, L.

  Poltimore, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Auckland, L.

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Belper, L.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Blachford, L.

  Sherborne, L.

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

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Sondes, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L,

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.) [Teller.]

  Calthorpe, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Tollemache, L.

  Truro, L.

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Clinton, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Northumberland, D.

  Bagot, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Rutland, D.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Conyers, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  De Freyne, L.

  Ellesmere, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Graham, E. (D. Montrose.)

  Digby, L.

  Dorchester, L.

  Haddington, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) [Teller.]

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Nelson, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Forester, L.

  Romney, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Rosse, E.

  Gormanston, L. (V. Gormanston.)

  Rosslyn, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Strathmore and Kinghorn, E.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Wilton, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Zetland, E.

  Hawarden, V.

  Norton, L.

  Melville, V.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Alington, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  119

  Saint Leonards, L. [Teller.]

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Resolved, in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed, to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

ARMY—BRIGADE DEPOT CENTRES.

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY THE EARL OF GALLOWAY moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for a Return showing for what number of troops the barracks at each 'Brigade Depôt Centre' throughout the United Kingdom are at present constructed or in course of construction."
  The noble Earl said, he understood in 1871 or 1872, that when the brigade depôt centres was adopted the barracks in connection with them were to hold something like 600 men.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, his noble Friend was mistaken in supposing that the brigade depôt centre barracks were ever intended to accommodate 600 men. The original intention was that the barracks at each centre should hold 100 men, and that in case more accommodation was required, owing to the brigade being extended to war strength, or other emergency, huts or tents should be provided. As constructed, however, the barracks could, on the average, accommodate 237 men and 15 officers, and 25 married men's quarters. This, he begged their Lordships to note, was not the measure of the barrack accommodation of the country generally; he referred only to the barracks built for the purposes of the brigade depôt centres.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
(The Earl De La Warr.)
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.

  (NO. 7.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORappealed to the noble Earl (Earl de la Warr) who had charge of this Bill, to postpone the debate till the end of next month, in view of the fact that the Government had a Bill on the same subject, on which they desired at the earliest possible
  120
  moment consistent with the due progress of other Business to take the opinion of the House.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he had no hesitation in acceding to the request of the noble and learned Earl.
  Adjourned debate on Motion for Second Reading put off to Tuesday the 24 th of June next.

METROPOLIS—GRAVEL IN THE PARKS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDasked whether it was intended this year, as formerly, to lay down gravel between the Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner, the end of Rotten Row and Queen's Gate, and in Regent's Park? He made this request as much in the interest of pedestrians as equestrians, as the gravel did not splash as much as the macadam; and it was already laid down between Buckingham Palace and the top of Constitution Hill. If it splashed in the one case it would in the other. He should like to prefer a further request for some place to shelter from a storm; but with a Free Trade Budget and an energetic and Protectionist foreign policy, he dared not ask for even a small sum for such a purpose. He would leave the matter over until another year, when circumstances might be more favourable.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that he was unable to accede to the request of his noble Friend. Rotten Row was a place entirely set apart for riding, and was specially laid down for the purpose of being ridden upon. But as regarded the space between the Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner the case was quite different, and for the sake of pedestrians he was obliged to refuse his noble Friend's request. Equestrians had ample space in Rotten Row for riding. It was, however, the intention of the First Commissioner of Works to put down some gravel in Regent's Park.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he was glad to hear that something would be done for putting down gravel in the Regent's Park, and he hoped the same favour would be granted to the road from Rotten Row to the Queen's Gate.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.