Sitting of 19 May 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Hall-Marking (Gold and Silver) [No. 191].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class III., Votes 1 to 15.
PETVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Teign Valley Railway Extension*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Terms of Removal (Scotland)* [189]; Costs Taxation (House of Commons)* [190].
First Reading—County Courts* [191]; Railways and Telegraphs in India* [192].
Second Reading—Customs and Inland Revenue [150]; Great Seal [180]; Indian Marine [182], debate adjourned; Metropolis (Little Coram Street, Bloomsbury, Wells Street, Poplar, and Great Peter Street, Westminster,) Improvement Provisional Orders Confirmation* [175]; Local Government Provisional Order (Cartworth)* [158]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Castleton by Rochdale, &c.)* [160]; Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*.
Committee—Report—Public Health (Scotland) Provisional Order (Bothwell)* [152]; Valuation of Lands and Assessments (Scotland) [144].
Considered as amended—Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland)* [97]; Dispensaries (Ireland)* [66]; Hares (Ireland)* [165].

QUESTIONS.

  PERSIA—RETIREMENT OF THE BRITISH MINISTER.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Minister at the Court of Persia is about to retire; and, if so, whether the Government will, in any new appointment, provide for the duties of that Mission being earned on by an Officer in direct communication with the Viceroy of India, and by an Officer experienced in Asiatic life and action?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I understand that the Minister at the Court of Persia has retired, and that his successor has not yet been designated. The late Minister was always in direct communication with the Viceroy of India.

PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT, SEC. 27—THE PRISONS BOARD—MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION,
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is
  686
  true that the Irish Prisons Board has, by declaring vacant the office of medical officer in various prisons, virtually dismissed from that office those surgeons of county infirmaries who have up to this filled it and performed its duties hitherto without remuneration, and in many cases for a great number of years; though now for the first time the office is to be made remunerative; whether this is in accordance with either the letter or the spirit of the Prisons Act (Ireland), s. 27; and, in any case, whether he will urge the Prisons Board to reconsider or modify an order which may entail great hardship on a most deserving class of county officials?
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I have always understood that the intention was to re-appoint the former holders of these offices. As, however, I find there is some doubt as to the law, I have referred the matter to the Law Officers for their opinion.

IRELAND—RELIGIOUS DISTURBANCES AT OMEY ISLAND, COUNTY GALWAY.
  QUESTIONS.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. ERRINGTON: Sir, before the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) puts the Question which stands in his name on the Paper, I would ask you, Whether it is in accordance with the usage of the House and the public convenience that Questions should be asked bearing closely on matters which are at present the subject of criminal proceedings, at the risk of prejudicing those proceedings?
    MR. SPEAKER: There is no positive Order on this matter; but Questions are not usually put in this House on matters which are the subject of criminal proceedings. There may be occasions, however, when such liberty should be given, and I leave it to the discretion of the hon. Member for Tyrone whether he will put the Question.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I do not wish to do anything contrary to the Bales of the House. I understood that the criminal proceedings had been concluded. [Major NOLAN: No.] Yes. But my Question does not bear on the facts of the case thus investigated, but is with regard to matters which took place before and since the riots, and in reference to which nobody is accused.

    687
    I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Dublin Daily Express" of April 21st, that on the 15th of April, when thirty-nine persons were summoned before the magistrates at Clifden, in the county of Galway, for riot and unlawful assembly near Omey Island, on the 2nd, 4th, and 23rd of March, the fact was elicited, on cross-examination by Mr. Henderson (the priest's solicitor), that the magistrate had actually asked the same Roman Catholic clergyman who was summoned for riot on March 2nd to assist in preserving peace in the district on April 3rd; whether it is true, as stated in the "Dublin Evening Mail" of April 18th, that during the trial Dean M'Manus and several priests, sitting together below one of the jury benches, repeated in an audible tone the evidence to be taken down by the clerk; whether it is true that, since the discharge of the persons accused of said riots and unlawful assemblies, the Protestant children attending the National Schools in that neighbourhood have been hooted and pelted with stones, and that Miss Walshe, the Dish Church Mission teacher at Errismore, was assaulted on her way home on the evening of the 1st of May by a number of women with their faces covered who were lying in wait for her, who seized her, tore her clothes, and cut her head, leaving her in a fainting condition; and, whether any steps have been or are intended to be taken to prevent Her Majesty's Protestant subjects in that part of Ireland from the persistent persecution to which for some time past they have been and still are exposed?
    MR. ERRINGTON: Before that Question is answered, I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the question of the honourable Member for Tyrone, Whether, in taking steps for the due protection of Her Majesty's Protestant subjects in Connemara "from the persistent persecution to which," as alleged, "they have been and are still exposed," he will consider the justice of also protecting Her Majesty's Catholic subjects in that part of Ireland from the provocation to which they have been long exposed from the proceedings of certain proselytising societies, which wound the religious feelings of the population and tend to produce breaches of the peace?
    MR. O'DONNELL: I also have a Question to ask, and it is unnecessary to say that I ask it without any sectarian feeling. I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the Question of the honourable Member for Tyrone, Whether the Government is aware that the so-called "Irish Church Missions to Roman Catholics" in the West of Ireland are conducted by means of the publishing of placards and the distribution of tracts in which Catholics are invited to become "Christians," and the deepest convictions of a Catholic people are grossly insulted; whether his attention has been called to the conduct of the agents of these Missions, who, it is complained, thrust upon the Catholic peasantry statements that the Sacrifice of the Mass is "a sacrilegious mummery," the respect paid to Saints "a blasphemous idolatry," confession "a system of vice," and similar provocations; whether it has been brought to his notice that these agents are in the habit of seeking out needy peasant families, and offering victuals and money as the price of conversion; and, whether the Government will cause an investigation to be made, for the purpose of preventing conduct designed to provoke to breaches of the peace, although ostensibly pursued under cover of zeal for religion?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, it is manifestly impossible to deal fully with this subject within the limits of a reply to Questions; but, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the facts of the case are given with substantial accuracy in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney). With reference to the Questions of the other hon. Members, I believe that in some instances placards of a very objectionable character have been made use of by some of the agents of the Church Missions, though I am glad to learn that this practice has been discountenanced by the responsible heads of the movement. Now, as to the course pursued by the Government, I must point out that we have no jurisdiction over what is termed proselytizing, or the distribution of alms. ["What?"] I see I must spell the word alms, and explain that we have nothing to do with gifts of what are alluded to as victuals and money; and, therefore, our duty is simply to put down disturbances by

    689
    whatever party they may be created. With this object, a force of 100 constabulary was sent into the district, and will be maintained there at the cost of the inhabitants as long as its presence may be deemed necessary. Legal proceedings were instituted against the leading participators in these discreditable proceedings, and a similar course will be adopted against any persons who may be guilty of any attempt to disturb the public peace in future.
    MR. CALLAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether these objectionable placards have in any one single instance been publicly discountenanced by the leader of the Irish Church Mission party; and, if so, when and where?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I have reason to believe that the exhibition of any placard of an irritating character has been discountenanced by those persons who are responsible for the conduct of the Mission.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I am sure the House will indulge me for a moment, for I live in the immediate neighbourhood of the place where these occurrences took place. I beg to say to the House, and to the right hon. Gentleman, that to my certain knowledge the zeal of certain persons ostensibly connected with this Society—or, at any rate, sympathizing with it—has led them to undertake the distribution of tracts. ["Order!"] I will conclude with a Motion, Sir, for this is really a very serious matter. The locality in which these events occurred is inhabited by some of the poorest of Her Majesty's subjects. They are almost every one of them Roman Catholics, and there is carried on in their district a system of distributing tracts of the character mentioned in the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Errington), which tracts, and post-cards as well, are systematically sent to the priests as well as to the people; and when it has happened, as unfortunately occurred on a recent occasion, that there have been disturbances through these poor people finding their religious feelings outraged, they are subjected to all the pains and penalties of the law, as the right hon. Gentleman says they are to be now. They are the poorest—without exception, the very poorest—individuals in Her Majesty's
    690
    Dominions; and they are now called upon to bear the expense of about 120 police, who have been distributed through these wilds. I will take an early opportunity of asking the sense of the House of Commons as to whether it is just or right that these expenses should fall on these unfortunate people. It is the duty of the Executive to keep order in all parts of the country; and it is a new law, which is not carried out in this country, that the expense should be thrown on the people of the district for keeping up the police, who ought always to be maintained there if their protection is needed. I beg, in conclusion, to move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
    MR. CALLAN: I will second it. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say specifically if he has any authority for the statement which he has just made; and, if so, what authority? Within the last three months of my residence in Dublin, three placards were put in at my door as I was standing at my library window. They were put in the letter-box. I saw the man do it, and then I saw him go and place a similar three in the letterbox of the late Mr. Butt, and I saw him put three more in at the door of the Loretto Convent. I then collared the vagabond, and inflicted summary chastisement on the spot. I have the placards in my possession; and I would like to know whether the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who supports the Irish Church Mission, will disavow and disown these discreditable and disgraceful practices.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
    MR. NEWDEGATE: I have no information on the subject, except such as has reached me through the Press, or by means of Questions asked and discussions raised in this House. If the hon. Gentleman desires to know what is the impression produced on my mind by this information, I can only say that I think that what has happened will be remembered when hon. Gentlemen opposite again put forward, as I have heard them urge, pleas on the score of religious liberty.
    MR. MACARTNEY: The hon. Member for Galway speaks of the propriety of throwing the cost of extra police upon the people in one part of the country. I know that when disturbances take place in the North of Ireland, and extra constabulary are sent down, they are charged to the county, and the Government do not have to pay for them.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: What I said was, that that does not happen in England.
    MAJOR NOLAN: I wish the public to know the facts. I can speak from a knowledge of 20 or 25 years, for I have property in the district, and I know within my own knowledge, having heard many things on the spot, that, from 20 years ago down certainly to within the last four or five years, there has been a constant system of offering children clothes and food, and, in some cases, I believe, money—but I am not sure as to money—on condition of their changing their faith. Well, there are people in London who contribute to the Irish Church Mission, and they should make up their minds as to whether they wish for these disturbances, or consider whether that is a right and proper means of influencing the religious feelings of the people by giving them food and clothing on condition that they change their faith. Of course, these disturbances were extremely wrong; but I believe that those who read the evidence will see that they originated, in the first instance, in the action of a Protestant schoolmaster. I know that that is contested—I do not wish to speak with authority—but there is no doubt whatever of a system of wholesale bribery going on. There has never been the slightest feeling against the Protestants; but there has been, at different times, a strong feeling against this system of proselytizing by means of money or money's worth. What has happened is, of course, very much to be regretted; but, at the same time, the people who subscribe the money for the purpose of converting the children, sometimes the parents, ought to be held in some measure responsible for the disturbances which occur.
    MR. SULLIVAN: I would remind hon. Gentlemen that they will find in the Liverpool papers of a year ago letters from English Protestant clergymen who went into these districts, and who had these circulars put into their
    692
    hands; and one of these clergymen declared that if he had received one of these placards, outraging his own religious convictions, he could not have restrained his feelings, even if they had led him into violence.
    MR. O'DONNELL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) has not answered the Question as to whether any investigation will take place. This is a matter concerning the peace of a very large district, and in which the facts are disputed. I altogether take exception to the manner in which the Government has treated the subject; and I venture to say that if an incendiary Catholic society were to extend its operations to an English Protestant town, and were to hand about tracts and send round agents using the most foul-mouthed language with regard to the Protestant religion and its rites and doctrines, Her Majesty's Government would go a long way beyond merely quartering an extra force of constabulary in the district, and would consider whether the Catholic society had or not been guilty of the offence of provoking breach of the peace. It is all very well to speak of respect for the law, and of the necessity of avoiding outrage; but human nature is human nature in Ireland as in England. In England, conduct on the part of Catholics like that of these most unworthy Protestants in Ireland would have led to riots, and those riots would necessitate the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government. It is impossible to suppose that the Catholics of the West, or of any other part of Ireland, will put up with these continual outrages on their religion; and, though they may commit a legal crime, their natural resentment will receive the warm sympathy of a vast majority of their countrymen—the honest and free-thinking—wherever such outrages may be repeated.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POST OFFICE—THE NEW INTERNATIONAL POST CARD.—QUESTIONS.
MR. SULLIVANasked the Postmaster General, If the new International Post Card issued by his Department, headed "Great Britain," is intended to be available for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and, if so, is there any reason for not correctly printing the fact?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: The new International Post Card is intended to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. The reason why it was headed "Great Britain" was that, in the Convention agreed to last year in Paris, the United Kingdom is styled Great Britain all through, and not Great Britain and Ireland, and the Post Office has simply followed the designation contained in that document.
MR. SULLIVANasked, Whether the noble Lord's Department would not call the attention of the Government to the inaccuracy, and ask thorn when the practice commenced of making the term "Great Britain" cover Great Britain and Ireland in negotiations and Conventions with foreign nations?
LORD JOHN MANNERS: I have not thought it necessary to call the attention of the Government to the matter; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman attaches any importance to it I shall be very glad to do so.

SCOTLAND—RELIGIOUS DISTURBANCES AT DUNDEE.—QUESTION.
MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that recently serious excitement and rioting were caused at Dundee by the appearance on public platforms of a person representing himself to be an ex-priest of the Catholic Church engaged in exposing the misconduct of the Catholic Clergy; whether the person in question was in the habit of mimicking in the most offensive manner the most sacred rites of the Catholic religion, such as the ceremony of the Mass as performed by the officiating priest; whether, after much bad feeling had been excited, it was not discovered that the pretended ex-priest had never belonged to any Catholic Ministry, but was an ex-convict, who some years previously had been found guilty in Canada of a disgraceful offence; and, whether, to prevent such abuse of the rights of religious discussion, some provision would be introduced, as in the Indian Penal Code, against gross and scandalous insults to the religious beliefs entertained by large sections of Her Majesty's subjects?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Watson): Sir, I have to inform the hon. Member that I have made inquiry into
694
this matter, and I regret to state that I found that there did take place in Dundee some disgraceful exhibitions of the nature he describes. The chief actor in them described himself as an ex-priest of the Roman Catholic Church. I am informed that it is doubtful whether he ever held that position; but I have it on the authority of his own admission, and that is the only evidence I possess, that he was recently convicted in Canada of an attempt to commit a disgraceful offence. The law of Scotland, now that we know how the matter stands, is quite sufficient to meet such cases, and I trust to be able to give such instructions as will prevent the repetition of such a scandal.

INDIA—THE FOUR AND A-HALF PER CENT LOAN ALLOTMENT.

  QUESTION".
  SIR CHARLES MILLSasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can give any particulars regarding the allotment of the Four-and-a-half per cent. Loan offered for subscription in India?
  MR. E. STANHOPE, in reply, said, that the amount tendered was for 6 crores, 70 lakhs of rupees, while the amount accepted was 4 crores, 5 lakhs, at the average rate of 94¾.

ARMY—THE 58th REGIMENT—FOREIGN SERVICE.—QUESTION.
MR. WHEELHOUSEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it be the intention of the Government to send the 58th Regiment, now serving at the Cape, direct to India upon the conclusion of the Zulu War; whether the 58th Regiment has been only five years in England after ten years' service in India; and, whether, after the last return home of that Regiment, it was not despatched on foreign service before its full time in England was completed?
COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, it was not the present intention of the Government to send the 58th Regiment to India. That regiment had been 9 years 8 months in India, and 4 years 11 months at home. It had not been sent on foreign service before the proper time, though the exigencies of the Service had curtailed the period of its stay in England.

CUSTOM HOUSE—THE TEA AND EAST INDIA DEPARTMENTS—DEFECTIVE SANITARY ARRANGEMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case, as stated in the "Sanitary Record" of the 16th May, that a report has been made to the Treasury by the Office of Works on the defective sanitary arrangements of the Tea and East India Department Offices in the Custom House; and, if so, whether the Treasury intend taking any action in the matter?
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, the improvements suggested by a Report made in May, 1878, on the Tea Department at the Custom House had been carried out. After the Estimates for this year had been prepared—in fact, only on the 18th of April—a fresh application was made for improved accommodation in that Department, in which the statement was again made of unhealthiness. As this fresh application appeared to have been made more with a view to providing extra comfort than an improvement in the sanitary condition, and as it was overcrowding rather than unhealthiness that had to be dealt with, the application had been postponed in order to avoid a Supplementary Estimate. He could assure the hon. Member that it would not be lost sight of in the preparation of next year's Estimates.

SOUTH AMERICA—CHILI AND PERU—THE HOSTILITIES.—QUESTION.
MR. A. MILLSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information other than that which has already appeared in the newspapers has reached the Foreign Office respecting the war now going on between Chili and Peru; and, whether any intervention by way of mediation is possible on the part of Her Majesty's Government?
MR. BOURKE: Sir, the information which has been received at the Foreign Office is similar to that which has appeared in the public journals. Her Majesty's Government have tendered to both belligerents their good offices, with the view to a settlement of their disputes.

COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDING ACT 1860 (AMENDMENT) ACT—INCREASE OF FEES UPON SUITORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HERSCHELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a statement showing approximately what would be the annual sum to be levied under "The Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865 (Amendment) Act," on the suitors in the next twenty-five years, in the shape of an increase of fees, and what percentage of increase on the present fees would result.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, in reply, said, that the annual sum to be levied under the Courts of Justice Building Act, 1865, Amendment Act might be approximately stated at some £35,000 a-year, as far as could be seen at present; but he feared it would be impossible as yet to say what percentage of increase on present fees would result, because the Bill now before the House would spread that increase over a much larger area than that on which it would fall under the law as it stood.

METROPOLIS—STATE OF REPAIR OF PUBLIC ROADS.—QUESTION.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the streets and roads of the Metropolis are under any general Government supervision; and whether complaints have reached him of the bad condition of many of the Metropolitan roads in consequence of the indifferent materials used in their repair, and especially from the use of the circular pebble and gravel instead of broken stone, and of lumps of much larger size than those of two-inch diameter invariably adopted by Mr. Macadam in his construction of roads.
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir the streets and roads of the Metropolis are not under Government supervision, nor are they under the supervision of the Metropolitan Board of Works. They are under the supervision of the respective Vestries and District Boards of the Metropolis. As regards complaints of indifferent materials, I do not recollect any complaint as to circular pebble and gravel instead of broken stone; but now and then I have had complaints of the

697
bad state of the roads in the Metropolis, and whenever I have had such complaints I have always taken care that they were forwarded to the Vestries or District Boards responsible for the proper maintenance of the roads. I have also taken care that the representatives of those districts who are on the Metropolitan Board should have notice given them, so that they might see into the matter.

"THE GOVERNMENT AND THE TELEGRAPH COMPANIES"—PURCHASE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY—CHARGE OF FRAUD.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FORTESCUE HARRISONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If his attention has been called to an article headed "The Government and the Telegraph Companies," which appeared in "Capital and Labour" on the 9th instant, in which it is stated that a memorial has been sent to the Lords of the Treasury containing grave charges against certain persons therein named in connection with the acquisition by the Government of the United Kingdom Electric Telegraph Company in 1869, and asserting, amongst other things, that by the award made in that transaction the revenues of the country were defrauded to the extent of over £400,000; and, whether it is true that a memorial of this nature has been received by the Lords of the Treasury; and, if so, whether he will lay a Copy of it upon the Table of the House, together with the reply of the Government thereto?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: A Memorial has been submitted to the Treasury, asserting that the Government has been defrauded of more than £400,000 in respect of the award for the acquisition of the United Kingdom Electric Telegraph Company, and they have also received a sworn declaration denying the truth of the allegation. A considerable part of the subject-matter of the Memorial does not concern the Government; but I have caused an investigation to be made into that portion which does concern the Government, and there will be no objection to laying on the Table the Report I have received on that part of the subject. I think it would be objectionable to make
  698
  Parliament the vehicle for publishing statements that do not concern the Government.

NORTH OF ENGLAND—THE NEW UNIVERSITY—ISSUE OF A CHARTER

  QUESTION.
  MR. COURTNEYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If, in view of the possibility of the advisers of the Crown recommending an exercise of the prerogative in the issue of a charter of a new University in the North of England, he will arrange that an opportunity shall be previously given to this House of expressing an opinion thereon?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that he feared he could not make opportunities for the discussion by the House of the scheme for the proposed new University; but the hon. Member would have it in his power, if he thought right, to move an Address to the Crown on the subject.

AFGHANISTAN—THE WAR—BASES OF PEACE.—OBSERVATION.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It may be of interest to the House that I should mention that the Government have received a communication from the Viceroy of India, stating that the bases of peace have been arrived at with the Ameer Yakoob Khan.

SOUTH AFRICA—NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE BOERS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question, of which I have not had an opportunity of giving him Notice, but which, if he would prefer it, I shall be content if he will answer to-morrow. On Saturday, there appeared in one of the daily newspapers a document professing to be a despatch from Sir Bartle Frere, in regard to the Memorial of the Boers. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he can tell the House if such a despatch has been received, and, if so, whether he will lay it on the Table of the House?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I have not received any such despatch. On the 24th of April, Sir Bartle Frere telegraphed from Pretoria that Copies of the correspondence between himself and the Boers would be sent by the next mail; but he made no reference

699
to this despatch, which is dated April 17. Of course, however, it may be authentic; and, if it is so, its publication in South Africa before it reached me might be accounted for by Sir Bar tie Frere having shown it to the Boer Committee, to ascertain whether they were satisfied with it as a summary of their arguments.

AFGHANISTAN AND ZULULAND—THE WARS—NUMBER OF BRITISH TROOPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WADDYgave Notice that on Thursday he would ask the Secretary of State for War to state the number of British Forces of all arms now engaged in the prosecution of Wars in Afghanistan and Zululand respectively, including in each case the troops actually under orders.
  COLONEL STANLEYsaid, it might save inconvenience, if he said at once that he did not think he could give any information with regard to the troops employed in India. He was not sure that he had the innformation, or the means of procuring it; but, if he had, of course he would produce it with the rest.

PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.

  QUESTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked, Whether, in the probable event of the discussion on the Indian Budget lasting more than one night, the Government would take the adjourned debate on the following Monday, or make arrangements for continuing it on Friday?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he must consult with his Colleagues before giving an answer.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked the hon. Member for Roscommon, When the second reading of the University Education (Ireland) Bill would be taken?
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he had every reason to believe that it would be the first Order of the Day on Wednesday; and, if so, he intended to proceed with it on that day.
  DR. CAMERONasked, Whether the second reading of the Banking and Joint Stock Companies Bill would be taken before Whitsuntide?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not give an answer to the Question at that moment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES. [Progress.]

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (1.) £56,706, to complete the sum for Law Charges, agreed to.
    (2.) £162,444, to complete the sum for Criminal Prosecutions, Sheriffs' Expenses, &c.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it would be well if the Government would inform the Committee what steps were being taken to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee which had inquired into this subject. Economy ought to be effected in this matter; and when the present Government came into Office they had an opportunity of effecting economy in the Administrative Department of the Courts of Justice. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that, as long back as 1873, a Committee of the House was appointed to inquire into the Civil Service Expenditure. The Committee examined into the various Legal Departments in the country, the administration of which cost £1,750,000. After reviewing the evidence they had received, the Committee considered that all the Legal Establishments were unduly expensive; and they reported that, not only were there ample fields for economy, but also great need for improvement in the administrative arrangements; in fact, in their opinion, great service would be rendered to the public by a reorganization of the Administrative Department. Two years after that Report, he had the honour to bring this subject before the House, and he was assured by the Secretary to the Treasury that it was engaging the attention of the Treasury. On looking at this Estimate, it was impossible to observe that any results had ensued from the attention which the Secretary to the Treasury then promised to give to the matter. He hoped that, after this long interval, the Government would do all in their power to put into effect the recommendations of the Committee. At the present time, economy was so very requisite, and it would be

    701
    well that this opportunity should not be lost.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that what he promised last year had not been lost sight of. On the discussion of this Estimate last year the noble Lord called attention to the facts he had now re-stated; and in answer he (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) could only say that a Departmental Committee had been appointed, and were about to investigate the matter at once. He was happy to say that the Departmental Committee had reported, and the Lord Chancellor had prepared a Bill on the strength of the Report of that Committee, in which he proposed to deal with the whole of the recommendations made for the reorganization of the Offices under this particular head. He trusted that that Bill would shortly be introduced, and that, in the interest of economy, the House would pass it into law.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £147,768, to complete the sum for the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, agreed to.
    (4.) £52,809, to complete the sum for the Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions of the High Court of Justice, agreed to.
    (5.) £78,228, to complete the sum for the Probate, &c. Registries of the High Court of Justice, agreed to.
    (6.) £9,375, to complete the sum for the Admiralty Registry of the High Court of Justice, agreed to.
    (7.) £10,110, to complete the sum for the Wreck Commission, agreed to.
    (8.) £31,542, to complete the sum for the London Bankruptcy Court, agreed to.
    (9.) £366,679, to complete the sum for County Courts.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, that the Lords had before them a Bill dealing with the administration of justice through the means of the County Courts, brought in, he believed, at the instance of the Lord Chancellor. That Bill had not yet come down to this House. He begged to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General whether there was a probability of that Bill, which would, or, at least, ought, to materially affect this Vote, coming down to this House with any chance of it being passed this Session?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred had come down to this House, and would be introduced almost immediately. It was a question of some little difficulty whether the Bill had any chance of passing this Session. If it were not opposed, no doubt it would be passed; but if it were opposed, he feared its chances of passing this Session would not be very great. He hoped the Bill would receive a considerable amount of approbation; and, that being so, they would pass it this Session.
    MR. WHITWELLwas glad to see that his hon. and learned Friend was hopeful in respect to the Bill. The Bill, which had been introduced from time to time in this House by his hon. Friend (Mr. Norwood), had not had the opportunity of being passed; and, of course, he was quietly and honourably waiting until he could put his Bill into competition with that passed in the other House. He feared, therefore, that the Government measure would not make much progress until the Bills were referred to a Select Committee. It was a singular fact that in this year's Estimate there appeared a large increase in the expenses for conveyance of persons committed. Was that owing to the expenditure incurred under the administration of the new Prisons Act, or why should a very large increase take place in this respect? If the Estimate were correct, the increase in the expenses for conveyance of persons committed by the County Courts was £2,510. If an increase appeared in the number of persons committed, it would be a fact to be regretted.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONthought that an explanation would be found in the increase of the County Court business. They found that a greater number of cases were dealt with by the County Courts; and, therefore, they saw a proportionate increase in the expenses. Every year showed a steady increase in the amount of work done by the County Courts.
    Vote agreed to.
    (10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £4,518, 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 Office of Land Registry."
    SIR, WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, his impression was that the Land Registration Department practically did no work at all; it was, in fact, one of those unfortunate failures of Law Reform. He believed that the cause of the failure was that land registration was a kind of permissive legislation; but he did not intend to go into that argument. He believed that land registration would not be successful until they made it compulsory; but, of course, they knew there were influences at work to resist a policy of that kind. But they must deal with the matter as it was; and they had got, in point of fact, a large staff to do practically little or no work at all. Unless he heard to the contrary from his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he must incline to the impression that there was not more work than one Registrar could do. They had a Registrar receiving £2,500 a-year; and it was really absurd, in the existing state of the Court, to have an Assistant Registrar at £1,500. This was a matter in which a piece of practical economy might be effected; and, really, considering the quantity of work done, it was simply ludicrous to have an Assistant Registrar and three clerks. He had no desire to disturb the distinguished gentleman who held the office of Registrar; but to maintain so large a staff to do so small an amount of work was simply a waste of public money. One Registrar, at a very small salary, and without a single clerk, ought to do all the work required of him. He hoped they might hear from the Government that there would be some endeavour to effect economy in this instance, unless there was some chance that this Office would have more work to do.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, this question was before the House last Session, and there was considerable discussion in respect to land registration. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) moved for a Committee to inquire into the subject, and the hon. and learned Gentleman imagined that he had hit upon a scheme for obviating all difficulty, and for making land registration a very useful institution. The hon. and learned Gentleman nominated the Committee. It was one of great importance, being composed of Gentlemen of great expe-
    704
    rience, and they had considered and investigated the question from that time to the present. The Report of the Committee had not been presented; but he believed that it would be in a short time. He should be glad if the Committee had hit on any mode of making the registration of land effective. He knew they had examined witnesses from Ireland and Scotland, where it was said that an excellent system of land registration prevailed; and it might be found, when the Report of the Committee was published, that some scheme was devised for making the registration of land effective—that was to say, that some scheme could be adopted, under which the persons who were owners of land could be induced to place their titles upon the register; and if persons were so induced, no doubt the present staff in the Land Registration Office—indeed, a very considerably increased staff—would be required. His own opinion was that it would be very difficult to make any scheme for the registration of land absolutely effectual, and to cause it to be brought into anything like universal use, unless they made registration compulsory. But he, for one, was not at all prepared to make registration of land compulsory. It was a very difficult question. It might be said, on the one hand, that it would facilitate the transfer of land—perhaps, to some extent, cheapen the transfer of land—yet, on the other hand, it would be a measure which would savour of arbitrariness, because they would compel a man to disclose to the world his title when, perhaps, he might not wish to do so. That, under ordinary circumstances, seemed to be a great hardship upon the owners of property. He might be wrong in the view he took, and it might be by some other way than by making registion of land compulsory that registration of land could be made effectual. It had been suggested that instead of registering the titles for land it would be a wise and expedient thing to provide for the registration of deeds through the country, and he did not think there would be any great difficulty in providing such a scheme. However, without occupying more time, he would say that the whole system was examined by a very competent Committee, and the Report of that Committee would, in a very short time, be before the House, and

    705
    then the House would be able to judge whether matters could be so arranged as to make this land registration a more effectual Department than at present. His hon. and learned Friend was somewhat in error in thinking there was no work for the gentlemen in that Office to do. The truth was that, under the Act of 1875, very few registrations had taken place; but under the Act of 1862—Sir Richard Bethell's Act, he believed—a good many titles had been put upon the register. As those titles had to be dealt with, they occasioned a good deal of work, which had to be performed by those in this Office. He held in his hand a Return showing what had been done between the 21st of February, 1878, and the 14th of March, 1879. Under the Act of 1875 only 13 titles had been registered during that period—or rather, he believed, only six applications had been made—at any rate, the value of the property which had been dealt with was altogether only £57,000 odd. That was not much; and he confessed that under that Act very little seemed to have been done. The fact was that the Act was not compulsory, and persons did not resort to it. Under the Act of 1862 there had been placed upon the register—including transfers, changes, and so on—608 titles; and, altogether, the value of the property dealt with was £1,238,000. His belief was that if these Acts worked thoroughly well, and if people did largely resort to registration of their titles, the present staff of the Department, instead of being excessive, would be inadequate. At all events, he would ask the Committee to pass the Vote until they had had an opportunity of considering the Report of the Committee.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, several years ago lie asked why, considering the small amount of work which was done by this Department, the Government did not take care to require that the officers of it should be required to perform other duties for which they were qualified? He considered the hon. and learned Attorney General had utterly failed with the whole ease. The hon. and learned Gentleman had pointed out that, under the Act of 1875, they had dealt with property of the value of £57,000, and, under the Act of 1862,property of the value of £1,238,000. Of course, that was no more than £60,000
    706
    a-year, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, having admitted that the £57,000 was a very small amount of property to have been dealt with, he must admit that this £60,000 a-year was not much more. The point which he wished to ask the Treasury was whether these officers were not to be more usefully employed than they were now? He asked that the Government should look after the expenditure, and should see whether gentlemen drawing salaries might not be employed in taking up some part of the legal business in other Departments. He blamed the previous Government, just as much as the present Government, in the matter, and hoped to see more care exercised in future as to the employment of these gentlemen.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) had done good service in bringing the question before the Committee. He listened attentively to the hon. and learned Attorney General, and he was bound to say it appeared to him that there was very little doing in this Department. He thought the House ought to have some better guarantee than they had at present of the work done in these Offices. It seemed to him that the lawyers were the only people whose business was not thoroughly scrutinized, and the money which was annually voted simply for the benefit of the Legal Profession. They were the only people who got any good out of the House. He thought the House ought to be particularly careful and cautious in seeing that they did not create any more of these new Offices, or else that they should be sure to attach to them some real work to be done. It might be urged that more work might come into this particular Office in the future; but the attention of the Government had been directed to this Office on previous occasions, and he hoped they would make some serious alterations in it next year, or else that the Committee would reduce the Vote. The House did not intend that these things should be perpetuated. There were other things besides this Department which were waiting for criticism; but, as to this particular Office, he ventured to think that, unless more work was done next year, some great reduction ought to be made.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the Committee were very much indebted to the hon. and learned Member who had brought the subject under the notice of the Committee, and who did it in a manner which showed he had devoted to it considerable attention. He was bound to say the hon. and learned Attorney General had entirely failed in justifying the expenditure which the Committee were now considering. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them, with perfect accuracy, what amount of business had been transacted, and he knew perfectly well that was not sufficient to employ anything like the staff for which salaries were charged. But the hon. and learned Gentleman told them that if certain things occurred possibly there might be more business in this Office; but he did not expect those things to occur. He said if registration were compulsory there would be more. No doubt, there would be; but this was not a question of compulsory registration; and he might remind the Committee this was a question which had gone on year after year. He thought the only way of dealing with these matters was to divide the Committee—that they should mark their sense of the extravagance of this Vote by proposing to reduce it. Of course, he was not going to move to reduce it to what he thought it might safely be brought down to, or he should move a reduction of £3,000 or £4,000, but he proposed to reduce it by £1,000; and he assured the Committee that if they would give him a majority in favour of reducing the Vote by £1,000, they would do more by that majority than by any amount of discussion. He agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that these legal charges seemed to be those over which the House had the least control, and in thinking there were other cases quite as bad as this. He took blame to himself for having inadvertently omitted to take notice of an item just now which was covered up by other Votes, and was passed in No. 3. Legal officers were appointed who drew large salaries, and did no work for them; and if it happened that no notice was taken by a Member of the House the Vote was passed, although the matter might be one requiring the most careful attention. Something was said last year about certain legal officers, and he thought something
    708
    ought to be done with them by the Government. He alluded to the Official Referees, and he would call the attention of the hon. and learned Attorney General to the discussion which took place last year on that subject. With regard to the Vote now before the Committee, he moved to reduce it by £1,000, and he trusted the Committee would support him, as an indication to the Government that they called upon them to make some substantial alteration.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,518, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Land Registry."—(Mr. Rylands.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped the Committee on this occasion—whatever they might do in the future—would not agree to the reduction of the Vote. He could not help thinking the House was very much to blame when it passed Acts of Parliament necessitating expenses of this kind; although it was quite true that after the Acts were passed the expenses should be brought as low as possible. However, as to the Vote now before the Committee, they had been told by his hon. and learned. Friend the Attorney General that a Report was forthcoming from the Select Committee. He thought it would be hardly courteous to that Committee if the House were to do that which might be directly opposed to its recommendations. It was possible the Select Committee might suggest a mode of throwing more work into the hands of those officers; but he deprecated a reduction of their salaries as long as they were allowed to remain as the administrative staff. He quite admitted that the expenses ought to be considered, and the Government had shown they had considered the question by the appointment of a Committee. Certainly, if that Report was in the sense of what they thought at present, some alteration in the Vote must take place another year.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, the House had already experience of the result of attempting to improve this Office. A Bill was brought in by the Lord Chancellor some years ago and passed, and then they were pressed to continue this Vote because of the probability that

    709
    there would be an increase in the work of the Office under that Act. That Act certainly had produced some increase; but how much? Virtually nothing. For the last 15 years they had been registering estates to the amount of £60,000 a-year, an amount which would only represent a comparatively few estates, and for that they had been paying in expenses for this Office £5,000 a-year, or at the rate of nearly 10 per cent on the full value of the estate registered. When this Office was established they were told that its expenses would be met by the fees from owners who went to it in order to validate their titles. In the face of that assertion, let the Committee notice that the amount of estimated extra receipts for 1878–9 was £6, and for 1879–80 it was the same amount, while the whole amount of registration fees was £793. An Office, in fact, which cost the country £5,400, was yielding something like £800, and the balance repaid what the country contributed for the benefit of those who availed themselves of the use of this Office. He did not think they should wait for the chance that a Report of a Committee now sitting upstairs might increase the work of this Office. No one could have said more for the continuance of the Office than the hon. and learned Attorney General; but he was sure the hon. and learned Gentleman must feel—as everyone who had listened to the debate must also feel—that the Office had not done the work which was expected of it; that the House made a mistake when it established it, and that this expenditure ought really to be stopped.
    MR. GREGORYthought the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had been a little unfair in his remarks about lawyers, and he claimed to speak in this matter on public grounds. It was not for him to anticipate the result of the Report of the Committee now sitting upstairs; but he thought it would be to throw a good deal more work upon this Office. If his clients were compelled to register their deeds, he certainly should advise them to register their possessory titles also, for one would be but very little more expense than the other, and would give owners all the advantages of a possessory title. For that reason, he believed that an increase in the registry of deeds would increase
    710
    the registry of titles also. In his opinion, the House itself was largely responsible for the failure of this Office. When the Land Transfer Bill was in Committee, he and his hon. and learned the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) raised a discussion about the operation of it; and if the proposition they then made had been carried out, he felt certain that it would have largely increased the usefulness of this Office. They suggested that, after a certain number of years, a person might take his title off the register and get, at the same time, a declaration of title. He was certain that many persons had been prevented from registering their titles by the apprehension that if they wanted subsequently to cut up their properties the registration would be a great source of expense. With reference to the expense of this Office, another course might be adopted. They had in Middlesex a registry of deeds, while this Office merely registered titles, and he did not see why these two Offices should not be amalgamated. He must add, also, that the fact that this Office had not had any work to do was not the fault of the officials, according to his experience, for, whenever he went there, he was received with the greatest politeness and courtesy.
    MR. CHILDERSdesired that the Committee should thoroughly understand the question before it—namely, whether a body of gentlemen who had: had for 10 years next to nothing to do should be continued without reduction in numbers. The hon. and learned Attorney General had practically admitted that these gentlemen had very little to do; but, on the other hand, they were told that a Committee which was about to report would probably make some recommendations which would give them something to do. He must say, in. reference to that, that their practice in that House had not been to find work for public officers to do, but first to ascertain the work which required to be done, and then to see that officers were appointed to do it. The other system was putting the cart before the horse. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had given the officials of this department great credit for their affability and courtesy to him. But there was no wonder at that. The officials must have been delighted to see him, for he was one of

    711
    those rare visitors at their office, a professional gentleman with something for them to do. It had been suggested that this Office should be merged in the Office for the Registration of Deeds in Middlesex; but he would remind the Committee that of all offices this was about the least satisfactory. The Registrarships were unqualified sinecures. In 1867, a Committee was appointed by Viscount Cranbrook to inquire into the working of that Office; but for 12 years nothing had been done to remedy its abuses. He had not heard anything to justify the expenditure on the present Office, which could be reduced without the faintest risk of mischief.
    MR. LOWTHIAN BELLseconded the Amendment. The formation of the Office seemed to have been a mistake; and, if so, as it was costing the country a great deal of money, it ought to be discontinued.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTdid not think the arguments of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had at all touched the question at issue. They were asked to give the Office a fair trial, and they were told that the Select Committee would recommend some change. But then the hon. and learned Attorney General had told them himself that he was opposed to compulsory registration, so that work would not be found for the Office in that way. Then, again, an hon. Gentleman opposite had recommended the amalgamation of the Registry of Deeds with the Registry of Titles. But for a Registry of Deeds they did not require a Registrar at £2,500 a-year, and an Assistant Registrar at £1,500. For registration of titles a lawyer was necessary to examine the titles; but any clerk could undertake the management of an office for the registration of deeds. They were asked to give the Act a little longer trial; but he did not see why the money of the country should be spent on the hypothetical chance that some day this Office might be wanted. He would divide with the hon. Member for Burnley.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)replied, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford was not completely exact in what he had said. He had not reported that this Office was really overwhelmed with work; but, at the same time, the Office did do a greater amount of work
    712
    than some hon. Members seemed to suppose. During to the period for which the last Return was made, property was dealt with of the value of over £1,283,000. According to his own view, the registration of titles could be of no use unless that registration were made compulsory, which, under our present system, was impracticable; but, on the other hand, many of his hon. Friends took a more hopeful view of the matter, and had suggested alterations which they thought would make this Office more efficient, and would bring in a great deal more work than it had at present. If the registration of deeds, which at present existed in Middlesex, were extended to the rest of the Kingdom, undoubtedly a great deal more work would be thrown on this Office. It was proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) to lop the salaries of these clerks by £1,000 a-year, which, practically, meant that the officials should be made to suffer for the sins and omissions of Parliament. It would be a wise thing, and a politic thing, to see how the Act worked after the new changes, and then, if it failed, let them propose to repeal the Act; but do not let them visit the defects and failures of the system upon the officers, who were not responsible for these faults, and who had done their best to carry out the Act.
    MR. LOWEsaid, last year a Committee was appointed to inquire into this subject, and during last Session and the present one it had taken a great deal of evidence. It had now closed that work; and, as he understood from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), they were now engaged in considering their Report—if, indeed, they had not actually agreed upon it. He did not say what the Report of that Committee would be; but, under such circumstances, as a Member of that Committee, he must decline to to enter into the merits of the question now at issue.
    MR. RAMSAYhad so much desire to see an effective system of land registration established in England that he should have very great hesitation in giving any vote which would do away with the system now in existence. But the statement now made showed that the system was wholly inoperative. Therefore, unless some assurance were given

    713
    them that, after 16 years' experience of the present system of land registry, there would be some attempt at a change and at an improvement, he should certainly vote for the rejection of the entire Vote. At present, there was simply a waste of money in this way to the extent of £5,400 a-year.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, they were told that now that the Government had had their attention drawn to this matter it was their bounden duty to see that something was done. He would suggest that the proper time to consider that matter would be when the Committee, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) had spoken, had sent in their Report. Then the House would be able to see what changes they recommended, and what alterations it was necessary to make. It certainly would not be fair for the Government to take the matter in hand before that time; nor did he think it would be fair either to turn round on these gentlemen and deprive them of their salaries because some hon. Members were of opinion that they had not sufficient to do.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDreminded the hon. Gentleman that the issue left to the Committee was simply the Motion to reduce these salaries by £1,000; and the justification for that step was the fact that though all these gentlemen enjoyed large salaries they had, practically, nothing to do. It was not proposed to deprive them of their salaries, which would be most unfair, but only to lessen them by about 20 per cent. He opposed this Vote, for the reason that he opposed the Acts which constituted the Office. Even after their experience of the working of the first Registration Act, and of its failure, the Government secured the passing of a second Act, although he and other Members warned the House at that time that such an Act would be a failure, and that nothing could succeed but compulsory registration. He said at the time that this system would be merely an addition to the cost of transfer, and that they could not expect it to be generally adopted so long as it was permissive. It was far better to leave the system of conveyancing unaltered, unless the House was prepared to pass an Act providing for a compulsory registration of title. For these reasons,
    714
    he should give his support to the Amendment.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDwas quite aware that the Office, as now constituted, had not sufficient work, and on that point he was entirely at one with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), and his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). For all that, he trusted the Committee would not allow itself to be carried away by the youthful impetuosity of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). They must deal fairly with gentlemen who had given up the practice of their Profession and had taken important duties under the Act of Parliament. Although the Act had turned out ill, still they ought to give these gentlemen fair notice. They now heard that alterations were proposed which would give these gentlemen more work to do; and if those fell through, he certainly should be prepared to reduce the Vote in the next year. He certainly would do so himself in the next year, and he thought others would support him. But it did seem to him unfair to strike a sudden blow at these gentlemen, who had done all in their power to make the Act a success, and who certainly were not to blame if it had failed.
    MR. THOMSON HANKEYcould not understand such an argument at all. They were asked to pass the Vote now, and were told that if that were dune this year it would be a warning for the future. But that was what they were always told, and was a principle which would prevent the House from ever rejecting any Vote that was ever proposed. Of course, the rejection of the Vote might inflict some hardship on the individual; but it was the duty of the Government to redress that, and to see that no injury was done. He must protest against the view that, in common justice, they could not propose these reductions without doing some injustice to individuals. How, if that view were accepted, was the House ever to effect a reduction in the Votes? If they thought that the Office was not working satisfactorily, it was their duty as Members to vote against this Vote, and it was the duty of the Government to see how they could best provide for these gentlemen, who, if they were no longer employed in that Office, certainly might be em-

    715
    ployed in some other way. He remembered the discussion when this Office was first formed. They were then told that the Office was to be self-supporting, and that so much business would come in that the fees would pay all the expenses. But they found that that was not so; and the hon. and learned Attorney General made the matter still more melancholy by declaring that it never could be so. He declared that the Office could never pay unless registration of titles were made compulsory, and he then showed that compulsory registration of titles was impossible. If that were really the opinion of the Government, then the sooner this Office were abolished the better.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYERwas of opinion that it would be very unjust to abolish these salaries at present. The gentlemen who received them held their posts under the authority of two Acts of Parliament. The Registrar and Assistant Registrar were both men of large practice. They were taken from them, and put into these Offices, the duties of which they thoroughly and efficiently performed. How, then, could they possibly deal in this way with them? No doubt the system of registration of titles was a failure. He said, when the first Act was proposed to the House, that it would fail; while, as to the second Act, which was proposed in order to give the Office something to do, he stated in the House that no such result could be hoped for from it. What he had said had turned out to be true, and it was what he had always expected, because no system of registration of titles ever could succeed. He was a Member of the Committee to which reference had been made, and he believed that its Report would shortly be ready. He believed the Committee would recommend, instead of a registration of title, a registration of deeds. In face of such a proposal, it would be a very rash thing to abolish this Office just at the very time when a change was to be proposed in the law, which would give it work to do.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwished to know whether the Government intended to endorse the pledge of the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), that this Vote should not appear again in the Estimates in its present form, unless some change were made in the arrangements?
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he did not pretend to give any pledge on behalf of the Government or the Party. He merely said that unless some change were made he should not himself support the Vote.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThad misunderstood the hon. Baronet. But he wanted to know what the House was sitting in Committee at all for, if salaries could not be altered? The duty of the Committee of Supply would be a farce if this argument were to apply. The argument was contrary to every principle upon which the Committee of Supply was founded; and he was surprised to hear his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) endorsing it. The country had provided a regular system for dealing with cases where Offices were abolished by means of the Superannuation Acts; and, therefore, they might vote on this question without inflicting any hardship whatever on the gentlemen composing the Office. The reduction proposed, too, was not nearly so great as would take place if the officers were abolished.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 140: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 102.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (11.) £18,690, Revising Barristers, England, agreed, to.
    (12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £11,673, 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 Police Courts of London and Sheerness."
    Mr. CHAMBERLAINsaid, this was one of those expenses which the whole country was called upon to bear, but which properly should be defrayed by the Metropolis. He had moved on a previous occasion to reduce another Vote as regarded the charge for the police at the Patent Office; but he did not press that matter because, after the discussion, he thought there was some reason to believe that that charge really was one for national purposes. On the other hand, it could not, in his opinion, be maintained that the Metropolitan Police Courts,

    717
    with the exception, perhaps, of Sheer-ness and Chatham, were really maintained for national objects. No doubt, at those two last-named places, a good deal of police business did arise out of the national Dockyards there; and, so far as they were concerned, he would not trouble the House with any observations. As regarded the others, he would remind the House that in the country they had to pay for their own police courts, and, practically, to bear the whole cost of the summary administration of justice. But the Metropolis obtained from the national funds not merely funds for the maintenance of its police courts, but the money with which to build them. Only last Session, they had a Bill before them to provide money for the erection of a police court at Bow Street out of the national Revenue. Out of the national funds, also, they were paying for the new Courts of Justice, which, to a considerable extent, were the Assize Courts of the Metropolis; while, if Leeds, Liverpool, or Manchester wanted new Assize Courts, the people of the locality had to bear the cost of them. In this Vote, £14,163 was asked for; but there was a charge made elsewhere of £5,403 for superannuation allowances, which brought the total cost of the Metropolitan Police Courts up to £19,166. Against that, he was aware it was said that they should set the amount received for fees at the various police courts. The amount estimated from this source in 1879 was £19,700, so that the fees would appear to pay all the costs of the courts. The Committee must, however, bear in mind that a portion of the payments for the police courts, and the whole of the salaries of the magistrates, amounting in all to £35,500, were taken from the Consolidated Fund. It had been said that some of the business transacted at these police courts was of national importance and necessity, and he was quite prepared to admit that that might be the case in some exceptional cases. For that reason, certain amounts might be fairly asked for from the national funds; but it was not fair to charge the country, and especially the Provinces, with the whole of these payments. Unless some explanation were given, convincing him that he was in the wrong, he certainly should carry this to a Division, and he should move the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.
    718
    He should not feel so strongly on this subject, if this were the only case; but the present was only one of a series of Votes, in the nature of eleemosynary contributions to London and its outlying districts, made at the expense of the local authorities in the country. The Government, and its supporter's in that House, were always ready to taunt the Provinces with their lavish expenditure for local purposes, forgetting that by their Bills they had compelled them to undertake these works, and had then heaped upon them, in addition, these payments for works in the Metropolis, which ought, according to all principles of taxation, to be borne by London alone. He had always been an advocate for a re-distribution of seats, in accordance with population; but when he thought of what 20 Members had been able to do for London, he shuddered to think of what might be done by four times that number, and he supposed that would be the proportion to which London really was entitled. Not only had they secured for the Metropolis, at the cost of the nation, the great central Parks, which were part of the ornament of the capital, but they had also made the nation pay for the outlying Parks, like Battersea. Museums, Picture Galleries, and Free Libraries, which, in the country, would be paid out of the local rates, in London were erected at the cost of the Consolidated Fund. The time had come when something like a determined stand should be made, on the part of the Provinces, against this charge of local Metropolitan expenses on the Imperial Revenue, and he should, therefore, take a Division on the matter.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £1,763, 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 Police Courts of London and Sheerness."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    MR. HIBBERTthoroughly agreed with his hon. Friend. The time had certainly come for considering the propriety of paying for these local purposes out of the Imperial funds. Now that the question of giving certain amounts from the national purse towards the alleviation of local burdens had been considered, they ought to do something more, by taking part of this Vote from off the Imperial Exchequer and throw-

    719
    ing it on the Metropolis. In the country they had to pay for their police courts out of their local rates; and if they wished for a stipendiary magistrate, he was only appointed on condition that his salary was paid by the locality over which he presided. In the Metropolis it was very different. There they had £34,000 charged on the Consolidated Fund for the salaries of the magistrates; they had all the salaries and expenses connected with the courts paid out of the Imperial purse; and, in addition to all that, the country had also to pay for building the different police courts. He did think the time had come when this question ought to be really considered; and although he did not suppose his hon. Friend would be all likely to succeed on a Division, still the time had certainly come when the representatives of the local taxpayers should make a protest against the principle involved in this Vote.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwas not surprised that the hon. Member had brought forward this subject, for it had been raised again and again, and fought over and over again, on that Vote. The question simply was, whether or no the Metropolis was to be considered as an exceptional locality because it was the capital of the country, and whether or no it did not gather within its circuit so much of the life of the country, so much of the habits and customs of all the rest of England, that it was fairly entitled to charge these expenses on the general taxpayer? Certainly, these police courts had been charged on the general Exchequer ever since the year 1839; and he was not sure whether the Vote could not be traced back to 1790, and to the time when Bow Street was sufficient for all the needs of the Metropolis. For a great part of the year many of the people that London contained within its bounds came to it from all parts of the Kingdom; and it was on this ground that these charges had always been treated as national, rather than local. The question had been fought out over and over again; and, for these reasons, it had always been decided that these Votes were a general charge.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, if there was any way of convincing the Provinces that, in addition to their own heavy local burdens, they ought to pay still further to maintain the institutions of the Metro-
    720
    polis, the sentiments, almost approaching to poetry, with which the Secretary to the Treasury had defended the Vote, would have certainly done it. But the very circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded as justifying this charge were just the very circumstances which should seem to point out that, in common justice, the Metropolis ought to bear, to a very large extent, its own charges. It was perfectly true that a number of persons came annually to London from all parts of the Kingdom. But did they not spend a very large amount of money when they were here among the ratepayers? While, no doubt, the police courts were required, to some extent, for the work arising out of this influx of visitors, it was equally true, on the other hand, that the visitors brought with them the means of recouping the inhabitants very largely for that additional expenditure. But there was also another influx going on. A very excellent friend of his, whose son—an hon. Baronet—now occupied a seat in the House, and who, like himself, came from Lancashire, once said that the North was the best place to make money, but that London was the only place to spend it. Now-a-days, a large number of people, who had made large fortunes in the country, came to London to spend them, often living here at the very time that they were deriving large incomes from various parts of the country. All this pointed to the conclusion that the Metropolis was very wealth, and was yearly drawing to itself a larger amount of wealth, and that it was perfectly unjustifiable that, from year to year, Votes should be proposed, the effect of which was to impose taxation upon the inhabitants of the country at large, in order to relieve London from burdens of a character which other districts bore for themselves. The hon. Gentleman told them that this was an old story. No doubt it was. He himself, in the last Parliament, objected to the Vote in regard to some of these charges for police courts. He was supported on that occasion by his right hon. Friend opposite the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Sclater-Booth), who was at that time a Member of the then Opposition, and he was actually one of the Tellers. On that occasion they ran the then Government very close indeed, and there was some doubt whether there

    721
    would not be a tie. Of course, he did not expect his right hon. Friend to carry the enlightened opinions he then expressed to the Treasury Bench. The reason why that agitation produced no fruit was that there had not been sufficient attention drawn to the question in the country. His hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) bad spoken of the influence of the Metropolitan Members. But the interests of London were backed up, not merely by those Members, but by a large number of other gentlemen, who, though they represented country constituencies, were London men. As a consequence, the country did suffer when its interests came into collision with those of the Metropolis. It was only necessary, however, to call attention to what he believed to be a gross injustice to force the Metropolis to pay those charges which the country districts already had to bear.
    SIR WILLIAM FRASERbelieved that it would be no use discussing this subject so long as London was governed as at present. Who was to pay this rate, supposing it were made? Would they throw it upon the parishes, and call upon a poverty-stricken district, like Whitechapel, to pay it, or would they add the charge to the general rate of the Metropolitan Board of Works, under which they all at present groaned? So long as the machinery for managing London remained what it was at present, they would have one vestry trying to throw the charge upon another, and each evading the responsibility. Until somebody was responsible for the general management of the Metropolis, the system—if it could be called a system—would remain what it was at present.
    MR. M'LARENwas decidedly of opinion that the Provincial towns were used very unfairly in this matter, and that, so far from London paying nothing, it should help to pay the expenses of ether towns. If they took the two Houses of Parliament alone, and estimated the expenditure of each Member at £1,000 a-year, that gave an expenditure of £1,000,000 in the Metropolis, brought from the country; and, as everybody knew, this estimate was largely within the mark. He totally disagreed with the assumption that Londoners were burdened by the presence of strangers from the country among them.
    722
    On the contrary, he thought the Londoners should give the Provincial towns a bonus for the large amount of money they spent in it yearly. It was perfectly absurd to go on in this way. Only within the last few months they had been asked for something like £90,000 for the erection of a new police court. Why should the people of Manchester and Birmingham and Edinburgh pay for that police court? Why did not London pay for it, as other places had to do, when they wanted new courts? This lavish expenditure, at the cost of the country, had no justification whatever.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, it was quite true that this question had been discussed over and over again, but it had never yet been fought out thoroughly; and he was therefore heartily glad that his hon. Friend had taken the matter in hand. The question had already been discussed on Parks, Police Courts, Libraries, Museums, and Free Libraries. None of them grudged the National Museums, Libraries, and Parks; but he did object to grants for Parks in the surburban districts of London, and he had objected to it, unsuccessfully, year after year. They were now asked to pay for the police magistrates out of the national Exchequer. But, in his own town of Swansea, there was a stipendiary magistrate, who had often to decide very important shipping cases brought in from other places, and yet he was entirely paid by the ratepayers, and they got no help towards his salary from the nation at all. He hoped his hon. Friend would fight this out thoroughly. He probably would not be able to do much this year; but next year he certainly ought to offer a systematic opposition, and challenge every Vote which charged local expenses on the national Exchequer.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwould cordially support this Amendment, and any others of the same kind, as long as grants-in-aid were given. At the present time, £5,000,000 annually were distributed to the various localities, and he did protest against the continuance of those grants. They had been very largely increased since the present Government came into power; and he feared there was a great deal of favouritism in the way in which the money was spent. That could not, indeed, be helped. Any Government would be cer-

    723
    tain to favour those parts of the country which gave it the most support. He had suggested, instead, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give up to the different localities certain taxes which were exacted solely for legal purposes—like the dog tax, the carriage tax, and the hawkers' and appraisers' licence duty. These taxes were levied solely for police purposes, and the Government might free themselves from all imputations of favouritism and injustice if they made this change. Certainly, otherwise, they could not stop where they were; for, year by year, they would be forced to go on increasing these grants. Since the Government had come into power these grants-in-aid had increased by £3,000,000 sterling; and he did appeal to them to free themselves from the odium which at present attached to these grants by making the change he had suggested. Nothing had done the Government more harm than their increasing Budgets, for the people would not see their explanation, that they put into one pocket what they took out of the other.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, that had municipal government been granted to the Metropolis generally, the municipalities would have undertaken all these matters of expenditure in connection with the police courts; but the denial of these institutions, and the delay in setting right that old grievance, made it appear to be necessary to go on contributing out of the national funds all those sums of money for purely local purposes. The Police Force was maintained out of local rates, aided by the Government grant, which the Metropolis shared in common with all other local jurisdictions; and he could not conceive why the money now asked for out of the Consolidated Fund should not be paid in the same way, unless it was that the system was to continue until some competent power and influence in the House of Commons should prevent it.
    MR. PARNELLjoined the hon. Member for Birmingham in his appeal to the Committee to reduce this Vote by the sum stated. He also pointed out to the Committee that the case had a very much wider application than that which had been brought forward. In Ireland they had to pay out of local rates for the expenses of the police courts, and that out of local sums which were not at all
    724
    under the control of the ratepayers, as was the case in Birmingham. Their case was, therefore, so much the worse than that of the people of Birmingham, because they had a considerable amount of control over the expenditure of money raised for the purpose of supporting the police courts; while the people in the Irish towns and localities subject to the Grand Jury laws had no control whatever over the expenditure of money raised for those local purposes. That being the case, he thought that Irish Members might very properly join the hon. Member for Birmingham in his attempt to draw attention to this subject. He wished to know why the Metropolitan cities should get such Votes, over the towns in the United Kingdom? A Vote was taken on the Estimates for Police Courts in Dublin; but none was taken under the head of petty sessional courts throughout the country. It would seem, therefore, that the Government, for some reason of their own, had determined that the police courts in the Metropolitan cities should be helped in this manner by Votes from the Imperial Exchequer, but that the police courts and petty sessional courts throughout the country should not be so assisted. He asked that the Secretary to the Treasury should give a Governmental reason for this, if he was acquainted with it; but, if not, he (Mr. Parnell) suggested that the Vote might very properly be postponed until he discovered that reason. If hon. Members objected to vote money in the dark for purposes entirely inconsistent with the general practice and without any sort of reason in support, it was perfectly useless to say that "the practice had been going on for some time." That might be a good old Civil Service argument; but it had been noticed that the Service had been obliged to abandon, one by one, a great many of their old arguments and practices, and had to seek refuge in more modern tricks. He therefore joined the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) in pressing the Government for some reason why there was this difference and inconsistency between the practice of the Government as regarded the Metropolitan cities and the other localities throughout the country. Perhaps the Chief Secretary for Ireland could enlighten the Committee with regard to his part of

    725
    the business, which entered into the present question in a very marked and important manner.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 74: Majority 36.—(Div. List, No. 103.)
    Original Question put, and at agreed to.
    (13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £352,800, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Horse Patrol and Thames Police, and for the Salaries of the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioners, and Receiver."
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, this Vote raised the same question as the previous Vote had raised, although in a different form and not quite in the same degree, inasmuch as the Metropolitan Police Force received from the national funds a contribution larger in proportion than that received by any of the country police courts. He therefore thought it his duty again to raise the question by moving that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100,000. The Secretary to the Treasury had very truly told the Committee that this matter had been fought out over and over again in the House of Commons; but he need hardly point out that no impression was ever produced upon the Government until questions had been fought out a great number of times; and that if opposition to these Votes had not been successful in the past it was because they had not been fought out enough. However, he assured the hon. Gentleman that they would endeavour to avoid this in future. The question was one which would excite a great deal of interest in the country; and if, up to the present time, that had not been the case, it was because the accounts were so kept, and the debates upon the Estimates so timed, that the country at large did not perceive the extent of the taxation which was really being gathered from them. In his opinion, these Votes should be opposed, not merely because they were unjust to the country districts, but because they were also demoralizing to the people of London; for which reasons he should raise the question whenever he had the opportunity.
    Motion made, and Question proposed.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £252,800, 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 contribution towards the Expenses of the Metropolitan Police, and of the Horse Patrol and Thames Police, and for the Salaries of the Commissioner, Assistant Commissioners, and Receiver."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONquite understood the point of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) in the last Vote, but could not understand it in this. The present Vote stood in almost the identical position as the Votes for police in the different localities of the country, which were supplemented in aid of those localities by a grant made in each case of half-pay and clothing of the Force, and that, up to last year, was practically the mode in which it was assessed in the Metropolis. The rates, as the hon. Member was aware, might be called upon up to 9d. in the pound, which was the limit under the Act. Of this amount, 5d. in the pound was raised on the rates of the Metropolis, and the remainder made up by Government. This change, which took place about 14 months ago, was in lieu of half-pay and clothing; because, during the three previous years, it had been found that the charge amounted, on an average, to 4d. in the pound. Besides this, the amount of trouble saved in fixing the proportion was so great that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed to the suggestion of a 4d. rate as a fixed sum, which, on several occasions, was found to be practically below the amount contributed when the old "half-pay and clothing" system was in force. The rate of 4d. was, therefore, substituted in London for the contribution of half-pay and clothing. This matter was purely one of account. The fixed sum had saved an enormous amount of trouble in the Department of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN, not wishing to give any unnecessary trouble, asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, in view of the perfectly satisfactory explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. He had been under the impression that a larger proportion was given to the police in London than to those in the country districts.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked, what proportion of the rate was paid by the Imperial Exchequer for the police in the country districts? As a London ratepayer of 30 years standing, he thought that body were badly treated; and he would like to know why the Treasury had fixed their contribution at more than one-half the amount allowed by the Act?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONhoped to make this plain to hon. Members. As he had before stated, there was an Act under which the Metropolitan Police were organized, and which fixed a 9d. rate as the largest amount which could be levied in any one year for the police in the whole Metropolis. When the first subvention was made, it was for one quarter pay and clothing of the Police Force throughout the country, and the localities had exactly the same as the Metropolis. More recently, in 1874–5, the subvention was raised from one-fourth to one-half; and the amount, as he had previously stated, in different years, came at one time to 4d. and a fraction, at another to 4½d., and at another to less than 4d. But the accounting was so complicated, and the constant checking of these accounts was so great an addition to the labours of the Department, that he had suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to discard the fractions, and fix the sum of 4d. in the pound as the amount of contribution to the Metropolitan Police which, with the 5d. to be raised from the rates, completed the amount which could be levied under the Act.
    MR. RYLANDSconsidered the arrangement altogether inconvenient and unsatisfactory. He would take the case of Birmingham, Liverpool, or any other large town. The Corporations of these towns had to lay before the Secretary of State for the Home Department a statement of the number of their police force, and of the actual expenditure upon that force; if the expenditure did not, on any ground whatever, appear satisfactory to the Home Office, if the force were kept down to too low a number, or if there were any other circumstance in the management of the force which, in the opinion of the Home Office was not satisfactory, they would intimate that the subvention would be withdrawn. Now, in the Metropolis there seemed to
    728
    be an extraordinary arrangement in operation. It was, he presumed, under the Act of Parliament that in the Metropolis the amount of rating for police purposes must not exceed 9d. in the pound, in accordance, then, with this, the Metropolitan authorities, having power to levy the sum of 9d. in the pound, proceeded at once to spend up to it.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONreminded the hon. Member that it was not the Metropolitan authorities who did this. The whole Metropolis was, in this respect, under the management of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who satisfied himself as to the expenditure on the Police Force and its efficiency.
    MR. RYLANDSunderstood that the Home Office had the control of the Force, and could levy upon the Metropolis a sum, not exceeding 9d. in the pound, for its support. Presuming this amount to be sufficient, then, considering that at the present moment the London Police Force was costing a sum equal to 9d. in the pound, and that the subvention amounted to only 4d. in the pound—it would seem that the London Force was not subvention ed by a sum equal to the subvention of half the Expenditure granted to police forces in other parts of the Kingdom. Was that so? If not, he could not understand the case.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONwould endeavour to explain. The 9d. in the pound was the amount which, under the Act of Parliament, could be levied; but if the Secretary of State for the Home Department found that an increase of the Police Force was necessary, and that the expenditure went beyond this amount, he would come to the House for their sanction to another Act, or would ask to be allowed to increase the rate. Hitherto, this amount had been sufficient; but he could assure the hon. Member that it was only sufficient for the requirements of the Metropolis. The 4d. in the pound for the subvention to the Metropolis was, as he had already pointed out, the exact equivalent proportion of the amount given by Government to the different localities, on their representing what had been the expenditure upon their police forces every year.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYcontended that this was a great injustice. Instead of the Imperial Treasury contributing 9d., they only contributed 4d. in the pound;

    729
    from which it was clear that they only supplied one-half of the proper amount.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONpointed out that exactly the same proportion paid in the Metropolis was paid in the different localities. The one-half referred to by the hon. Member was the one-half pay and clothing.
    MR. PARNELLwas disposed to think that one of the reasons why it had been found necessary to supplement the Metropolitan expenditure for police out of the Imperial Revenue was that a sort of fancy police force was kept up in the Metropolis. It was found that whenever police were wanted for fancy purposes in the country—such as for the Derby—the Metropolitan Police Force, like the band of the Guards, were at once called into requisition and sent down at the expense of the Imperial Exchequer. ["No, no!"] His contention was perfectly true—that a very large proportion of the cost of the police, when the Metropolitan Police were sent to such places as he had referred to, fell upon the Imperial Exchequer. It would be a very useful thing to find out how much per 1,000 of population in each of the cities—say, of London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, and Liverpool—it cost to maintain the police force; for he was sure it would be found that the cost of the police force of London, as well as that of Dublin—where a similar city force existed in an intensified form—greatly exceeded per 1,000 of population the cost in the other cities and towns throughout the country. He fancied it would be found that the cost of the police forces paid out of local resources in Birmingham and Manchester was probably not more than one-half, as compared with the population in London and Dublin. Before this vote came on next year, he thought it would be exceedingly useful if some hon. Member would move for a Return, in a tabulated form, of the cost per unit of the population, for the police in the Cities of London and Dublin.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (14.) £890,148, to complete the sum for Police, Counties and Boroughs (Great Britain).
    MR. DODSONwished to have some explanation with regard to this Vote.
    730
    The Committee was aware that the grant-in-aid of pay and clothing for the police in counties and boroughs was, in the first year of Office of the present Government, increased from one-quarter to one-half, and that during the few years which had elapsed since that time the amount had very nearly trebled. The grant-in-aid, which in the year previous to their taking Office amounted to £322,000 for all the counties and boroughs of Great Britain, was estimated for the present year at nearly £900,000. And this could be accounted for neither by the increase in the number of men, nor by the number of the forces certificated to be efficient. In the case of the English counties the grant-in-aid, although it was not shown by the present Estimate, had increased by nearly £20,000—that was to say, it was, in 1873, £162,000; while for the year ending September, 1878, according to the Local Taxation Returns, it amounted to £381,000. At the same time, it was obvious that the increase in the number of men during the time named entirely failed to account for the great addition to the expenditure, and to that fact he desired to call the attention of the Government. Again, while the grant-in-aid of the English counties had increased by £220,000, the police rate in those counties had only been diminished by the sum of £50,000; and it was, therefore, clear that the increased aid given to the counties must have had the effect of stimulating expenditure by lessening the burdens on the localities, and making the authorities more indifferent to them. He would remind the Committee and the Government that when it was proposed to increase the grants-in-aid of the police in the counties and boroughs from one-fourth to one-half of the pay and clothing, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on the 16th of April, 1874, introduced the change as a merely temporary arrangement, saying—
    "We intend, therefore, to make proposals with regard to the relief of Local Taxation in the present year. They must he regarded not as absolutely final, but as proposals which we think will meet the present emergency, and will, to a great extent, facilitate what we may have to do hereafter."—[3 Hansard, ccxviii. 657.]
    This was said after adverting to the proposal to surrender an Imperial tax to local authorities, and observing that it was

    731
    worthy of consideration, but too complicated for a new Government to attempt. Again, upon the same subject, he said—
    "Having dwelt … upon the question of Local Taxation, I have only to say that it is a matter which will continue to engage our attention with reference, not only to the question of burdens, but to the further very important question as to the improvement of administration."
    He (Mr. Dodson) presumed that was said in contemplation of County Boards or municipal institutions for the counties. And, further, the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to say—
    "And the possible necessity of altering the present system and of devoting some branch of general Revenue for local purposes."—[Ibid., 661.]
    It was, of course, obvious, without expressing any definite opinion as to the merits of the scheme, that it was one which the Government intended to consider; and he thought it would, at all events, have this merit—namely, that the localities would be the managers and controllers of their own funds, and have a direct interest in economy. But under the present system of grants-in-aid the stimulus to economy was distinctly lessened, because they could dip their hands into the pocket of the Treasury and obtain relief in proportion to their expenditure. An attempt had been made last year by the Home Secretary to put some check upon the increase of the Vote; but it would be observed that the Vote went on increasing year by year. He would suggest to the Committee that if the Government were going to continue this system of grants-in-aid in proportion to the expenditure which the localities chose to incur, they should avail themselves of the control which the giving of these grants ought to confer for pressing upon the localities the importance of what he ventured to call "local centralization," in order to get rid, as far as possible, of the very small police forces existing throughout Great Britain. He felt that the Government must be desirous of arriving at that result within just and reasonable limits; and he was willing to admit that, to a certain extent, they had succeeded in carrying out the plan, although much remained to be done. There were in Great Britain, at the present time, between 200 and 300 different armies of police which, in some cases, consisted of only one man, and in others num-
    732
    bered up to 500 or 600. It was perfectly obvious that such a number of small forces was attended with many great drawbacks, and be was sure the Home Office must be perfectly aware of them. There was a great disadvantage in these small forces, both in point of efficiency and expense. He was not arguing in favour of a Central Police Force throughout the country, but for getting rid of these small armies, and amalgamating them with their neighbours in the counties or larger boroughs; and he maintained that since the Government had changed the system of grants-in-aid they should use the authority which the giving of such grants allowed them in dealing with the local authorities, to press upon them the advantage and necessity of this kind of amalgamation. He trusted the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would be able to furnish some satisfactory explanation respecting the increase of this grant.
    MR. WHITWELLcould not agree with what had fallen from the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) in his wish to abolish all the police officers of the local boroughs in the country; because he had seen and tabulated, to a great extent, the large increase that had immediately followed the annexation of small and larger boroughs to the system which had been adopted by the Home Office of subsidizing the establishment the moment it came under their power. Among a number of cases he was acquainted with was one where the establishment of the eight men who were quite sufficient to do the work of the place had to be raised to 12 before the Government would give them the grant. He remembered that in the first year after the Chancellor of the Exchequer adopted, under pressure, a system of granting half-contribution or subsidy, both he and the First Lord of the Admiralty, then sitting as Treasury Secretary, promised the Committee most faithfully, in the autumn of that year, to see if something could not be done to prevent such increases.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, having made himself acquainted in the course of several years with this subject, desired to say a few words with reference to it. He admitted that in the last few years the number of police

    733
    had increased; and it could not be doubted that the expenditure had also increased, in a proportion greater than the increase in the number of men; but this was due to the increased precautions which became necessary, by the people in the country being brought together at centres, necessitating additional men, as well as to the increase in the cost of wages and clothing which had taken place during the last few years. Before the grants-in-aid were increased, there had been rather a tendency to diminish the standing of the forces in different parts of the country; but the system afterwards set up, at his suggestion, gave the Secretary of State for the Home Department control of the numbers of the men, and, by keeping them in check, increased their efficiency. One force gave larger wages than the other forces in the neighbourhood; and it was for the purpose of bringing the different forces into something like harmony that the Secretary of State had adopted the present system. He believed that the system was still working well; but he could not bold out any hope that any great diminution in the force would result. The tendency in some districts was to ask for an increase to the force from the fact that they were becoming large commercial centres. While he was at the Home Office, a number of applications came to him from the Northern districts; and it was stated that it was absolutely necessary, for the maintenance of order in those districts, that the force should be increased. He believed that that increase was still going on. lie was sure that his right hon. Friends at the Home Office were keeping the expenditure in chock; but if they could once bring about an amalgamation of the small forces with the large ones, a plan supported by the Inspectors, they would produce greater efficiency, and, at the same time, greater economy in the management of the force throughout the country. As pointed out by the right hon. Member for Chester, the difficulty had always been that in small boroughs they preferred to keep their own two or three men, with, perhaps, two or three officers, rather than become parts of a central force, whereby economy in the matter of officers would be enormous. But it was found that these small places preferred to keep their little dignity of
    734
    a police force, and in one borough—that of St. Ives—they actually had a force consisting of one policeman.
    MR. DODSONobserved, that the additional expenditure on the Police Force was ascribed by the Secretary to the Treasury partly to the increased pay of the men and partly to the increase in the cost of clothing. He might remind his hon. Friend that although the grant had increased the cost of clothing had diminished, and, therefore, the increase was not duo to that cause. With respect to the rise in wages, that could not be the reason for the additional expenditure; because, if there was an increase in one direction, the decrease in the cost of clothing would counterbalance that. The explanation which had been given did not at all meet the case of the English counties. The grant-in-aid of the English counties, in 1873, was one-fourth of the pay and clothing, and amounted to £162,000. From the local taxation Returns, it appeared that in 1871 the grant was, £381,000. Thus the grant had more than doubled. But in that time the increase in the number of men and the increase in wages would not account for the additional expenditure. He should like to know whether it was to be understood, from what had been said, or from the silence of his hon. Friend, that the system of grant-in-aid, which was originally proposed only as a stop-gap, was to be looked upon now as having been adopted permanently? He should like to know whether it was seriously intended to allow the local authorities to continue to control their own expenditure, and to claim a grant in proportion to that expenditure, and whether the notion of the surrender of an Imperial tax was definitely abandoned?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he could not be expected to go into the whole question of local taxation, nor did he think that that was the proper place to do so. At the same time, he was perfectly willing to state his own individual opinion with regard to local taxation; and he might say that he hoped to see the day when, instead of subventions-in-aid, many matters might be handed over entirely to the local authorities. He did not, however, say that the question of a police force was one that should be handed over to the local authorities, or that it was a matter in

    735
    which the control should be given over to the local authorities. It must be remembered that the maintenance of a police force was a matter of national concern; and it should not be forgotten that, besides the local authorities, the whole country was interested in the proper maintenance and efficiency of the police force. If the subventions in aid of the police were to be discontinued, and the control of each division left to its particular locality, in many places, such as he had mentioned, where one single policeman was kept, a very insufficient number of policemen might be maintained, and the proper regulation and efficiency of the force might be very seriously impaired.
    MR. RAMSAYthought that the right hon. Gentleman had done good service by drawing attention to this subject. He did not agree in thinking that the consolidation of the police forces of the small boroughs with the counties was desirable, or could be easily attained in England, because of the fact that the small boroughs might object; and even if it could be done, he thought it would be better that each separate rating area should have the control of the expenditure upon the police within its bounds. As respected the amount of this grant, in his opinion it would continue to increase unless some step was taken by the Government to prevent it. His reason for so thinking was the experience of the past few years. These grants were always increasing, and would continue to increase. They had increased by the amount of £17,000 in one year, and his opinion was that Her Majesty's Government should consider the expediency of making an alteration in the present arrangements, though it was possible, with the present Parliament, that that would be a hopeless task. The principle upon which the grants were given to the local authorities might be just; but unless the local authorities had the local control and responsibility, they lost more than they gained by means of the grant. He greatly deprecated the increase of these grants, for he did not see that there was any corresponding advantage to the country. The loss of local administration and control was of greater importance than the sum that the counties and boroughs obtained by way of grant. In
    736
    short, it would be better for the State to do away with the grants altogether, than to continue them in the present form. There was no advantage to the ratepayers in receiving a grant-in-aid, when the cost of the police was continually increasing; for it must be remembered that the ratepayers in counties and boroughs were also taxpayers to the Imperial Exchequer, and, by receiving the grant, they had to pay more money, without securing any control by the local authorities in carrying out the expenditure. As he had said, the loss of local administration and control was much greater than the gain. The local expenditure was sure to be greater when the grants-in-aid were received than it would be if the sum required were wholly levied in the localities, and was under their control. It was to this end he wished to make these remarks—to suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they should consider the expediency of revising the policy adopted upon this subject. He thought that great good would be done if the Government would make known its intention that no increase would be allowed on the grants beyond the sum that had been received by the different localities during the past few years. He could see no advantage in going on with this indefinite annual increase, which, he should contend, gave no corresponding advantage to the country.
    MR. RYLANDSwished to call attention to the fact that the grant given in aid of the police force in counties and boroughs during the last year was £890,914. During that period £452,000 was granted in aid of the police force of the Metropolis alone. Why London alone should be relieved of its taxation to about one-half of the total grant he could not understand, and it seemed to him to be a matter worthy of attention. It did seem that the grant and the subventions to London were very much in excess of the sum granted to the other parts of the country. Probably that arose from the greater number of the police force, and the greater extent in proportion to the population. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson) had referred to the gradual increase of the subvention; and he was bound to say that he looked upon this enormous

    737
    increase as being a very serious matter. From his experience in the management of local affairs, he was quite sure that these subventions had a tendency to do away with the desire for economy on the part of the magistrates and the members of town councils; and he thought that it was one of the most unfortunate circumstances that local administrations all over the country should show their willingness, from time to time, to accept from the Government for the time being bribes to relinquish their local administration and their local control. He did not, for one moment, wish to make any charge against the present Government, for his observations applied equally to former ones. He considered it was a most serious mistake on the part of the localities to give up the management of their public business in return for Government subventions. He did not attribute this action to the occupants of the Treasury Bench, or to any of the Gentlemen who were now carrying out this policy in Parliament, so much as to the permanent officials of the public Offices. Hon. Gentlemen would know that the permanent officials of public Departments were always pressing forward every system of centralization which gave the Department greater power over localities. Of course, that power could not be obtained unless they were prepared to give money as a bribe for the relinquishment of local administration. He objected altogether to that system, because he believed it was contrary to the public interest. He had no doubt at all that the system was very much opposed to economy; and he should be very glad to see public opinion out-of-doors brought to bear upon Members of that House in order to put a stop to the system. He was quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in a speech made a short time ago, justified the policy of giving these subventions to the local authorities, by saying that at least, so far as they were a charge upon property, it was only taking money out of one pocket and putting it into the other. He altogether disputed that proposition. In the first place, they took the money out of one pocket—a considerable amount when everything was reckoned—but it was not put into the other pocket, for the local expenditure was not diminished to an equal
    738
    extent. But it should be remembered that the incidence of local taxation was very different to that of Imperial taxation. By these subventions in aid of local objects, property, upon which local expenditure was charged, was relieved, and the charge put upon the Exchequer was levied, to a considerable extent, upon the consumers of articles paying duty. Putting the charge upon the Imperial Exchequer was, in fact, levying it upon people of no property to the relief of some of the burdens of property. It did not appear to him that that was taking the money out of one pocket and putting it into another. These grants were being continually made, until the sum total of them swelled up to a very large expenditure, and local control and management was entirely done away with. At the same time, they formed a very considerable burden upon the taxpayers of the country. This was a most dangerous course to pursue upon the part of the Government, for it was increasing the expense of the central authority by increasing the general expense, and by relieving local rates. He thought that the only practical course for the House to pursue was to resist any measures which would increase this system; and he should be glad to see any practical scheme, either in the way which had been suggested, or by any other means, by which this expenditure should be prevented from increasing year by year.
    MR. STEVENSONobserved, that the excuse for these grants was that they were to enable the Government to have some control over the efficiency of the police forces in the different parts of the country. The proportion of general aid to local expenditure was first one-third, then one-fourth, and now had increased to one-half. This increase necessarily increased the influence of the Government Inspectors. When the population increased, additional police were put on contrary to the judgment of the local authorities, because the Government had prescribed a certain number of policemen according to the population. That was one objection to the control being taken from the local authorities. A Bill had lately been brought in dealing with loans to local authorities so as to diminish the facilities for borrowing, and to prevent local authorities being led into an extravagant ex-

    739
    penditure which they would not otherwise have thought of. The reason alleged for the Public Works Loan Bill was that local taxation required to be cheeked. If it were desired to check local expenditure, nothing better could be done than abolishing these grants-in-aid. In his opinion, the whole policy on this matter required alteration re-consideration.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONprotested against this being taken as an opportunity for entering into a local taxation debate. They were dealing simply with the Vote by which sums were granted in aid of local expenditure, and, in so doing, they were carrying out the decision of that House, not in that Parliament, but come to by a large majority of that House in the previous Parliament. This Vote was simply in pursuance of that decision. Of course, it was quite open to hon. Members to propose to reverse that policy by means of a Motion in that House, but not otherwise. The question of the police in the districts, and the question of local taxation generally, were quite distinct. An hon. Member had insisted that the Home Office had laid down a hard-and-fast line with regard to increasing the police according to the number of the population. So far as his knowledge went, there was no such regulation at all, nor was there any rule of any kind with regard to the number of the police. All that the Inspectors of police had to do was to inspect the force, and to see that it was properly conducted, and sufficient for the maintenance of order. From his own knowledge, he could assert that the localities were allowed to manage their own police, and that the matter was almost entirely left to them. He could give instances where the force was not sufficient for the maintenance of order, and the districts in which that happened were those which maintained their own police force, independent of inspection, and without taking the Government grant. Moreover, those districts were not officered as they ought to be when the necessity for a proper regulation of crime in the country generally was regarded. He had always advocated, and still advocated, an amalgamation of the small police forces; for, however much the maintenance of a very small force might gratify the vanity of particular
    740
    districts, they did not conduce to the public good.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR, having paid great attention to this subject, would like to make some observations with regard to it. The expenditure upon the police force had been gradually increasing, and in 14 or 15 years it had risen by no less a sum than £274,000. In 1878–9 the expenditure was £871,000; this, year it amounted to £891,000. These figures showed—and he had no hesitation in affirming—that there was absolutely no control over the police force. The figures showed that there was a gradually increasing expenditure throughout the country for the police force. Even in his own economical country—Scotland—the cost of pay and clothing was increasing, although it did not keep pace with the increase in England. He wished to press upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department that, in order to exercise a proper control over the expenditure, it was necessary to pay attention to the details, and look minutely into the numbers and pay of the police. In his opinion, the best plan was to abolish the grant-in-aid, and to give up the tax which was collected in counties. No proper control could be obtained over the expenditure until the whole management of the matter was left in the hands of the different localities.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that he could not assent to the doctrine of the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury, that this discussion was improper, when it had not been ruled out of Order. At the beginning of the Session the Government stated, when they took facilities for the discussion of the Estimates, that their chief reason for doing so was to give hon. Members more opportunity of discussing the Estimates. But now the hon. Baronet the Secretary to the Treasury informed them that they ought not to discuss the Estimates, except in such a way as he laid down. He thought that the hon. Gentleman was departing somewhat from his usual humble and kindly role, in assuming such a tone as that. He submitted that nothing in that debate had been out of Order, and since it had been in Order, it was not competent for him to use his high authority and position in trying to check a free debate. There were many questions which ought to be discussed; and now

    741
    the Government had given them greater opportunities for discussion, he pledged himself, when the Irish Estimates were reached, to use those facilities to the fullest extent, whether the Government liked it or not. He hoped that the Secretary to the Treasury would not forget his character of humbleness in talking to them.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONremarked, that he had no desire to prevent any hon. Member from discussing any part of the Estimates, and he was sorry that it should be thought that he had been discourteous in what he had said. All he wished to do was to remind hon. Members that they were not discussing local taxation generally, although the police force was a part of the question. If it were necessary to raise a discussion upon the policy of the Government in carrying out a system affirmed by a majority in the last Parliament, then what he said was that he hardly thought that was the proper time to raise that discussion. He protested against so raising a discussion as to relieving local taxation upon a Vote which affected only a part of the subject. He was very sorry if it should be thought that he had been discourteous, and he might say that he never intended to threaten any Member.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that, so far as his experience went, the present system of the police was very useful and very proper. At any rate, all who came into contact with the police force must confess that the present system was a great improvement upon the former one. The police were something like a local army in the country, and wore kept up for the benefit of the nation, and he believed that the expense of the police should be contributed to by everyone. For that reason, he should support the present system. In Ireland a constabulary force was kept up by Imperial funds; and that seemed to him to be very proper at present.
    MR. RAMSAYwished to explain that he did not feel that the Secretary to the Treasury intended his remarks to apply to the few observations which he had addressed to the Committee. The point at which lie aimed was that Her Majesty's Government should insist upon making the amount which was now given in aid of the police the maximum. He would press upon Her Majesty's
    742
    Ministers that they would consider the expediency of making the average of the grants that had been given to the several cities, counties, and boroughs during the past four years the maximum amount of the subventions. In that way they would prevent discussions, such as had arisen on the present occasion in consequence of the enormous increase in the grant. It would be an advantage to the community to know that the great annual increase in this direction had stopped.
    MR. MUNTZobjected altogether to Imperial grants in aid of local rates. He did not think that a greater mistake could be committed by the Legislature than this system of giving grants for the encouragement of local extravagance. For many years he had wished to see the system abolished; and he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay) was quite right in suggesting that the present grant ought to be the maximum. So long as the grant was continued in its present form the local authorities were encouraged in extravagance; and the more money they had the more they endeavoured to spend. He thought that the effect of centralization in increasing taxation was a matter that ought to be considered by the House.
    MR. CLARE READthought that one of the great reasons for the increase in the amount of the Vote of which so many hon. Members had complained was the competition which went on, in so many instances, among the rural authorities, and that blame in the matter could not fairly be attributed to the action of the Government. Wherever there was a wealthy borough in a county the desire appeared to be to provide it with as many constables as possible; and it was to that cause, and the great increase in the rate of wages, that the augmentation of the Vote was, in his opinion, due.
    MR. SULLIVANwould remind the Committee that in Ireland Governments seemed somehow or another always to contrive matters so as to create anomalies more absurd than those which existed in any other part of the Empire. In Dublin, for instance, there was a police force which was not managed by the municipality and which yet had to be paid for out of the local rates.
    Vote agreed to.
    (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £359,126, 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 superintendence of Convict Establishments, and for the Maintenance of Convicts in Convict Establishments in England and the Colonits."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought the Government ought to consent to the postponement of the Vote until the Report had been laid on the Table of the Royal Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the condition of convict establishments, and which he understood intended to propose certain plans with regard to their future management. Last Session, or rather the Session before, the question of convict establishments had been brought under the notice of the House, and a Commission bad been appointed for the purpose of inquiring whether some system of inspection over them would not be advisable, as well as in the case of the borough and county prisons, which were placed on an entirely different footing. The county and borough gaols were originally very much under the direction of the magistrates; and although the Act of 1877 destroyed, to a great extent, the power and functions of the visiting Justices, it still left them a certain amount of authority, and gave them certain facilities for looking after their management. But the convict establishments, which were the outcome of the system of transportation, had been introduced into England when it was found that the Colonies would no longer consent to receive our criminal population. Those establishments were new things; nobody was interested in them. They were not like the borough prisons, which had grown up with the growth of local institutions in England. They were ingrafted on the prison system of the country hastily, with little or no preparation, and with scarcely any safeguards or facilities for local inspection. Hence they were very much shut out from the light of day, and it was almost impossible to investigate any case, of which one might from time to time hear, because every one of the functionaries, from the highest to the lowest, were mixed up in a conspiracy for the purpose of protecting the present system. There was no independent inspection whatever;
    744
    and it was because that state of things had been pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reply to a Motion which had been brought forward, had promised that a Royal Commission should be issued to inquire into the whole question of the management and discipline of those establishments. That Commission had been appointed shortly afterwards, and had prosecuted its labours during the Session of 1878. Those labours, he was given to understand, were almost, if not entirely, concluded, and the Report of the Commission would soon be ready to be produced. He thought, therefore, that, taking into account the long time which had elapsed since there had been any discussion on the question, it would be desirable that the Vote should be postponed until hon. Members had the opportunity afforded them of making themselves acquainted with the nature of that Report. He wished, he might add, to bear his humble testimony to the very great service which had been rendered by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) as a Member of the Commission. He had heard from many sources in Ireland that the hon. Baronet had taken the greatest pains in the conduct of the inquiry to investigate the condition of the convict establishments in that country, which were rather worse than the general run of those institutions. He was, therefore, thankful to him for the manner in which he had discharged a difficult and responsible duty. He would conclude by appealing again to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who, he believed, fully recognized the importance of the question, to consent to the postponement of the Vote.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSScould assure the hon. Gentleman that he had but one object in dealing with the establishments to which his remarks related, and that was that justice should be done, and that no punishment should be inflicted in the prisons of the country except such as was absolutely necessary. The hon. Gentleman might rely upon it that whenever the Report of the Commission was made it would, if it contained any suggestion for the improvement of the management of those establishments, receive the best attention of the Government, He hoped,

    745
    however, the hon. Gentleman would not press for the postponement of the Vote, or if he did so that the Committee would not sanction the proposal, for it was necessary that the salaries of the officers should be paid, and the cost of the maintenance of the prisons defrayed, otherwise the system must come to an end. The only object of appointing a Commission to inquire into the subject was that the system of penal servitude, which had been substituted for transportation, should be thoroughly investigated in all its bearings, in order to see whether discipline was fully and properly carried out, and to ascertain the relative results of penal servitude and what, as contrasted with it, was called imprisonment. No hon. Member would, he thought, believe that systematic cruelty was practised in our convict prisons; and he could only repeat that if the Report of the Commission showed that any improvement was needed, not a single day should be lost in giving effect to any recommendation upon which the Government might deem it expedient to act.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that, however severe the convict system might be, there were many prisoners who did not look upon penal servitude as being so severe a punishment as imprisonment for long-periods. In two instances which had come within his own knowledge, when presiding at Quarter Sessions within the last two years, one prisoner who had been sentenced to two years, and another to 18 months' imprisonment, had begged, in the most earnest manner, to be sentenced to penal servitude instead. It was clear, therefore, that however severe penal servitude might be—and he did not mean to contend that it was not a very severe punishment, or that the law with respect to it did not require amendment—criminals did not regard it as being more severe than imprisonment, at least in some cases.
    MR. COLEsaid, the question which had been adverted to in the course of the discussion was one with regard to which he had entertained a very strong opinion for some years past. Pie had occupied the position of Recorder for many years, and one of the greatest difficulties which he had experienced in the discharge of the duties of that office was the awarding the proper amounts of punishment for the offences which he had to try. It often happened that a
    746
    prisoner who was brought before him was convicted of some small crime. He might have previously undergone a short period of imprisonment, also for a small offence, and there was his former conviction staring the Judge in the face. What was he, in these circumstances, to do? To pronounce a sentence of penal servitude for the full period of seven years was to inflict a terrible punishment, yet there was no power to give a less period. Those who were practically acquainted with the subject were also aware that two years' imprisonment was a terrible punishment. It had been frequently known to have driven those upon whom it had been inflicted to insanity. Yet, in many of the cases which came before him, the only alternative was between imprisonment for 18 months or two years, or a sentence to five years' penal servitude for a first offence, and seven if there was a prior conviction. The alteration in the law which was made some years ago, and which took away from Judges the power of passing sentences of three years' penal servitude, was, in his opinion, greatly to be regretted. Why, he would ask, should not that power be restored? He was anxious to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in the strongest way he could, the necessity of making the change. He had not long ago the pleasure of a conversation with a learned friend of his who, perhaps, tried more prisoners during the year than any Judge in the Kingdom—as many as 150 prisoners every session (except sessions being held annually)—and he, as the result of his great experience, had informed him that the difficulty of duly apportioning punishments under the present state of the law was one of the greatest with which he had to deal. The gentleman to whom lie referred was the Recorder of Liverpool, who had authorized him to express, if ever he spoke upon the subject in that House, his strong feeling that the law ought to be altered. He hoped, therefore, that the Home Secretary would feel it to be consistent with his duty to accept an Amendment which he intended to propose in the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill, giving the power to Judges to pass a sentence of three years' penal servitude.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the question was one of great interest, and that he, to a great extent, concurred in the observations which had been made by his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down as to the expediency of enabling Judges to pass sentences of penal servitude for a shorter period than five years. But leaving that point, he should like to know what prospect there was of some adequate system of inspection being brought to bear upon our great convict establishments? Were those great, solemn establishments, with their lofty walls and barred doors, to be altogether shut out from the view of the general public? What be wanted was that there should be somebody, on the part of the public, to look into them, and to see what was the mode of life and the position of their unfortunate inmates. He, for one, regretted that the power of the Visiting Justices had been almost destroyed, and he hoped to see their authority resuscitated and re-invigorated, so that, as far as possible, there might be a constant system of inspection of those institutions. There was another point connected with the subject which he was anxious to bring under the notice of the Secretary of State, although he had no doubt it was one which was frequently present to his mind. It was well, however, that it should be mentioned in that House, in order that it might be discussed, for the discussion might bear fruit in the future. We had, in those immense establishments of which he was speaking, a certain number of criminals who were doomed to undergo different periods of penal servitude. He was aware that the humane, and he believed the necessary, mode of administering the law required that those criminals should be afforded the hope that part of their term of punishment might be remitted. He did not wish, he might add, to raise too many doubts with regard to the administration of justice; but he must say that more than once or twice or three times in the course of his life he had felt convinced that a man had been made to undergo a term of penal servitude to which, though innocent, he was condemned. There was, of course, a great deal of difficulty in dealing with such case, and he knew very well how readily the Secretary of State, and his Predecessors in Office, had responded to any appeal
    748
    made to them to entertain and consider cases of the kind; but then it should be borne in mind that, in some instances, the necessary money was wanting to bring forward evidence; or death, perhaps, had removed some of the witnesses, or the Judge who tried the case; the result being that the wretched convict was left to endure his long period of unmerited punishment. That being so, would it not be possible, he would ask, to have an inspection of those prisons, and a review of the cases of the prisoners, to see whether or not some of the inmates might not safely be restored to civil life? It would require, no doubt, a high authority, and the possession of a lofty mind and judgment, in order that such a commission might be properly discharged; but, in the great majority of cases, the Judge who tried a prisoner could be appealed to; he could be asked to refer to his notes, and asked to give his opinion on the case; and, in that way, all the necessary precautions might be taken, and a proper amount of care bestowed upon each case as it arose. And, though caution was necessary in restoring convicts to civil life, he believed there were eminent authorities in the management of convict prisons in whose opinion at least one-third of the prisoners who were confined in them need not be detained there. Was not that a matter worthy of consideration? Was it not a terrible burden on our consciences that all this mass of human degradation should be maintained at the public expense, without any attempt being made to find out whether among the many cases there were not some of those convicts who might, without injury to society, be restored to it, and whether there were not some who had been innocently condemned? Was not the House of Commons incurring a great moral responsibility by not endeavouring, in regard to such a question, to perform its duty in some degree?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there were two points mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the course of his remarks with respect to which he entirely agreed with him, while there was one on which he differed from him altogether. He was, and had always been, in favour of the independent inspection of convict prisons; and he hoped the Commission would recommend some

    749
    scheme for the appointment of independent Visitors of all those establishments. He also concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the opinion that there should be, at all events in all serious cases, the most ample opportunity given to a man who was wrongly condemned to have a new trial. The most suitable time, however, to deal with that question would be when the Criminal Code (Indictable Offences) Bill came on for discussion. But he would beg to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that a man who had been convicted of a crime could always appeal to the Home Secretary without expense, and that no Home Secretary would be worthy to hold the Office if he did not most carefully investigate those eases which were brought before him. The point on which he differed from the hon. and learned Gentleman—and he did so most absolutely and entirely—was the expediency of sending a roving Commission all over the country to see how many offenders who had been properly convicted and sentenced to penal servitude might be again turned loose upon society. With such safeguards as he had mentioned against allowing an innocent man to suffer, it would be most unwise, in his opinion, that there should be any uncertainty as to a sentence being carried out after it had been passed.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONwas sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not deferred his remarks for a few moments, because he was desirous of having a discussion on a matter which he had very much at heart—he meant the question of industrial labour in prisons. No doubt, the present system was a great improvement on that which formerly existed, when the course adopted with regard to prisoners assumed more of the character of retribution. But the great difficulty was how far it was possible to try to reform a criminal inside the walls of a prison without injuring the honest man outside. Now, he was afraid that in the endeavour to reform the offender they had, to an undue extent, interfered with the well-being of the honest man. ["No, No!"] The hon. Member who cried "No, no" was not, perhaps, as well acquainted as he was with the details of the subject. He knew that in the prison at Wakefield, and those in other towns in the North of England, trades had been carried on to
    750
    such a degree as to be exceedingly injurious to the interests of the honest working man. He would mention, especially, the mat and brush making trades. Honest respectable men had come to him, and had also gone on deputations to the Home Secretary, who had represented that they bad been literally starved out of occupation through the monopoly of what was called prison labour. For that he did not hold the right hon. Gentleman in any way responsible; for he knew he was most anxious to redress, as far as lay in his power, the grievance of which those poor men complained. The right hon. Gentleman had been good enough, when the Prisons Bill was passing through the House, two years ago, to adopt an Amendment which he had moved, in order to form the recital to a clause in that Act, with the view of preventing the unfavourable operation of prison labour in the way which he bad just mentioned. He had not very long ago, he might add, put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, as to what was being done in the matter, and as to the total absence of any allusion to industrial labour in prisons in the Report for last year which had been laid upon the Table of the House. The answer was, that the Report did not at all apply to the present year, and that a Commission was now sitting with the view of redressing any grievance which might be shown to exist. Now, the inquiry would, he hoped, be carried out in a thorough manner. He, for one, was opposed to punishments being inflicted on offenders by way of retribution, or in any spirit of vindictiveness. The proper course was to endeavour to make a convict a better member of society, if possible, by reforming him. He would not, therefore, prohibit industries in gaols. If a prisoner knew a trade, let him follow it, and, if not, let him be taught one; but let not that system, at the same time, be carried out to the prejudice of the honest and respectable citizen who never committed a crime, and who had only his honest labour to depend upon. His attention had lately been called to the fact that there were absolutely tenders made from certain prisons for the manufacture of goods, not for the use of those prisons, or for the benefit of the prisoners, but in order that their work might go into the market and compete with that of the honest labourer outside.

    751
    They were seeking to reform the criminal at the expense of the honest working-man, and he protested against that system as one utterly unnecessary and unjust. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention had been called to certain tenders issued from prisons in Lancashire to manufacturers, stating the price at which work could be done for them in the prisons, and whether that rate was one that would undersell the honest working man out of prison? It was a great evil, if such a system was in practice. If the right hon. Gentleman had not seen those tenders, would he make inquiries respecting them, or issue such orders as would prevent those proceedings in the prisons generally?
    MR. HIBBERTdid not at all agree with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Serjeant Simon) with respect to prison labour. He held the opinion that the more industrial labour was extended in prisons the better it would be for the prisoners, provided that the trades carried on did not undersell the trades carried on outside. He rose, however, to ask his right hon. Friend for some little explanation about the amount voted for prisoners in convict establishments in the Colonies. There appeared to be one prisoner at Malta, 36 in new South Wales, 195 in Tasmania, described as paupers, lunatics, prisoners, or prisoners' children, costing £60 a-year each, and 225 in Western Australia, costing £i00 a-year each, while our own convicts cost £48. He thought that some promise should be given as to when these grants in aid of Colonial convict establishments should cease.
    MR. SULLIVANwished to call attention to a subject referred to by him last year. He reminded the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he had admitted it to be most objectionable that a stipendiary Coroner should be retained for a Government prison; but in page 208 of the Estimates the salary of that officer again appeared. He begged, again, to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this fact, which had probably escaped his attention.
    MR. WHITWELLsaid, the subject just referred to by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had also been
    752
    alluded to by him when the Votes were before the Committee last year. The whole Vote was one which could not be looked upon without a feeling of pain, inasmuch as it dealt with no less than 10,838 unhappy persons under confinement. He proposed to reduce this Vote by the sum of £4,950, being the amount of the cost of maintenance of invalids, lunatics, paupers, pauper children, &c, in Tasmania. He could not see why money should be voted for this purpose to the people of Tasmania. With regard to the Vote in aid of the Colonial magistracy, police gaols, &c, for Tasmania and Western Australia, which latter place had the control and management of the sum of £12,000, although he was perfectly aware that these grants were to expire in 1883, he considered that it was much better that they should be compounded for by the payment of a larger sum at once. The right hon. Gentleman would probably give an answer as to whether this would be done. Another question which he desired to ask was, whether the allowance to the prison officers included superannuation allowance, or whether that would have to be credited to them when the grant ceased?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, so far as the convict prisons were concerned, the work of mat-making, supposed to be improperly competing with honest labour, had been reduced, and, in many establishments, entirely discontinued. This industry was mainly directed to the supply of Government offices and establishments—which was, of course, perfectly allowable. If the necessity for industrial labour existed, the articles manufactured under the system ought not to be placed on a shelf and allowed to remain; they must be disposed of. His theory had always been, as far as possible, to make use of the labour of prisoners for the benefit of the State; and he was, at that moment, under considerable contracts with the Admiralty, and was endeavouring to get the Army to make contracts with the prisons for clothing, blankets, and matters of that kind. He thought nobody could possibly object to their making what they could for the public service, provided the canon laid down by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) was always followed—namely, that the proper market prices outside were not

    753
    undersold; and the hon. Member might rely that the principle was not in any way lost sight of. The expenditure on the convict establishments in the Colonies was one which could not be put a stop to in a moment, for the simple reason that the men were there, and so long as they were there the Vote would necessarily continue. The reason why the expenditure was large in comparison with the number of prisoners was that though the latter was rapidly diminishing the same staff must be kept up. Even if the number of prisoners was 50, they would require the same number of men to look after them as if it was 100. Hon. Members would see, by the Report of last year, that the number of prisoners in Western Australia was 850 up to the 31st of December, 1876, and that in December, 1877, they only numbered 275. The latter number comprised prisoners, lunatics, and paupers out of employment. As to Malta and Gibraltar, he found, when he came into Office, that not a farthing was voted, as far as he understood, for Gibraltar; but the Vote of £20,000 for prisons in Malta he could not understand. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear!] His hon. and learned Friend knew all about it. [Sir George Bowyer: No, I want to know.] With regard to the Coroner referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), he believed this must have been the Coroner who went to Dartmoor last year, and who was then paid by the State. But the hon. and learned Member would see that there was no Vote for this officer in the present Estimate. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury and he wore entirely agreed that it was a wrong thing that the Coroner should be paid by the State.
    MR. WHITWELLasked for information as to the pauper children in the Colonies charged for under the Vote?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that these were thrown upon the hands of the Government by persons who, having been sent out as convicts, had become insane. Of course, these could not be turned adrift.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYcould not understand how this Vote could be postponed until the Report of the Royal Commission was in the hands of hon. Members as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). He rose for the purpose of asking the
    754
    Home Secretary when that Report might be expected? With regard to the subject of compensation for punishment undergone by prisoners wrongly condemned, and the discharge of prisoners before the expiration of their sentences, he was of opinion that the more certain punishment was made the more efficacious it would be, and that the only way in which a prisoner should be able to earn a remission of his sentence should be by good conduct. A sentence once pronounced ought, in his view, to be carried out. He would take the opportunity of reminding his hon. and learned Friend of a saying of the late Chief Baron O'Grady. A man, whose trial had been by various means postponed for a period of 18 months, was brought before him and convicted of a discreditable offence. The prisoner pleaded guilty, but brought a strong recommendation from the prison authorities, stating that his conduct had been of much use in the moral education of the other prisoners. The Chief Baron received that testimony with extreme pleasure; it was delightful to find that the prisoner had been so well conducted during confinement, and that circumstance ought to be taken into consideration; but he added—"I think, therefore, that as you are a gentleman who behaves so exceedingly well in prison, and so exceedingly badly out of it, the best thing I can do is to keep you there as long as I can."
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND, as one of the Royal Commissioners, stated that the evidence had been closed, and that the consideration of the Report would begin on Friday. He hoped the Report would be presented to Parliament shortly after Whitsuntide.
    MR. MUNDELLAdrew attention to the estimated charge for 600 military prisoners, which, according to the footnote on page 205, amounted to £20,000. He could not conceive why this amount appeared under this head; it should have been debited to the War Office.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, this was the third Session that the Committee had refrained from discussing this Vote, on the ground either that a Royal Commission was about to be appointed, or was taking evidence. He suggested that, as the Report was so very near its presentation, the Committee ought to postpone the Vote until that Report was before the House. The Report would

    755
    be necessarily a voluminous document, and time was needed to direct the attention of the Home Secretary to those points which were considered of importance, while it would be quite impossible for him to carry out the recommendations of the Committee without undertaking fresh legislation. It therefore followed that the House should have the opportunity of fully considering the Report before it voted the money asked for on the present occasion. With that object, he begged to move that the Chairman report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion to report Progress. The Committee having been through an enormous amount of evidence, their Report would require some time for its consideration; and he absolutely declined to discuss that Report until he had an opportunity of reading the evidence. He trusted the Committee would not provoke discussion upon the Report in a serious manner until the evidence was before the House.
    MR. PARNELLwished to point out to the Committee that unless the Home Secretary did something with a view to carry out the recommendations of the Report next Session, he would have no opportunity of doing so at all, because the next Session would be the last of this Parliament. Unless the Committee had an opportunity of discussing this Report partially, at all events, and publicly, during the present Session, legislation thereon could not be rendered a matter of any certainty. It would be very wrong that a serious question, upon which hon. Members had been working hard for a number of years, should be thrust off to another Parliament; because it was a matter of great doubt how many of those hon. Members might be returned at the next Election.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKhoped the Home Secretary would offer some facilities to magistrates to grant orders to the friends of prisoners to visit them in prison. It was very distressing to have to refer poor men and women, who
    756
    wanted to be allowed to see their relations who were undergoing imprisonment, to the Home Department. The stringent regulations of the Secretary of State for the Home Department were a very great hardship upon poor and ignorant people, who still had feelings of affection for their relations, even though in prison; and he trusted that some way would be found to relax them. It was almost impossible for these poor people to reach the Home Secretary at all; and that, in his opinion, was a strong reason for granting some other means for communication between the unhappy prisoners and their friends.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that the hon. Member was discussing a subject which was not before the Committee.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONstated, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), that the military prisoners were formerly charged for under the Army Votes; but that since the prisons had been taken over by the State, the cost was paid out of the Prison Votes.
    MR. MUNDELLAmaintained that if the accounts were to be kept correctly, the charge for the military prisoners must be debited to the several Departments of the Army and Navy; otherwise the comparative cost of the different Services was erroneously estimated.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, it was not the fact that this portion of the Vote was dealt with in the sense presented to the House.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock;
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

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

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE: Mr. Speaker, the terms of my Amendment to the second reading of this Bill are—
  "That 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 further information as to such contemplated engagements has been laid upon the Table of this House, and this House shall have had an opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon."
  It is due to the House that I should explain why I have ventured thus early to call the attention of hon. Members to the subject of my Motion. It is now 19 years since this important subject was seriously debated in Parliament, and during those 19 years this House has undergone great changes. The number of Members who had scats in the House during the debates of the year 1860 upon the Commercial Treaty with France is very limited; and I find that among the other Members of the House there prevails in a certain degree a misunderstanding of the real position of this House with respect to Commercial Treaties, especially as that position is affected by the announcement of Her Majesty's Government that negotiations are pending for the renewal of the Commercial Treaty with France for six months. That, Sir, seems to be a very limited period; but my experience of the effects of the Treaty of I860 is such, that I think I am bound immediately to claim the attention of the House before these negotiations proceed further. Sir, the Treaty of 18(50—the Commercial Treaty with Franco—is not an ordinary Commercial Treaty. The Party, who at present sit on this side of the House, felt very strongly in 1860 that, in its substance and in the circumstances under which it was negotiated, the Treaty of 1860 constituted a very wide departure from the only precedent of a Commercial Treaty with France which at that time existed—the Commercial Treaty negotiated by Mr. Pitt in the year 1787. Let me refer for a few moments to the circumstances under which the Treaty of 1860 was negotiated. It was not until the 23rd of December, 1859, that the public became at all aware, far less this House, which was then in Recess, that there was any idea entertained of contracting a Commercial Treaty with France. It then appeared that the late
  758
  Mr. Cobden, a distinguished man, but not a Member of Her Majesty's Government, was employed in Paris in negotiating for a Treaty of Commerce directly with the late Emperor of the French, and that he had for some time been in communication with M. Rouher, one of the French Ministers. Lord Cowley, our Ambassador, was informed that such negotiations were going on, and he wrote to the late Lord Russell, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—
  "I conclude that your Lordship is aware that Mr. Cobden is unofficially negotiating for a Commercial Treaty between England and France."
  The reply of Lord Russell, I believe, confessed that he was aware of the circumstance; but up to or about the 23rd of December, 1859, Lord Cowley, our Ambassador in Paris, knew nothing of it. Lord Cowley concluded his despatch by saying that he could have no feeling of jealousy on the subject, and that he hoped Mr. Cobden would be officially intrusted with the conduct of the negotiations. Immediately upon that, Mr. Cobden was officially employed; and let the House observe, the first information that negotiations were in progress arrived on the 23rd of December, 1859, and upon the 23rd of January, 1860, the Treaty was signed. Parliament met upon the 24th of January, and on the 10th of February the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Financial Statement, having induced this House to take Ways and Means before Supply, so that he might include in his Budget the substance of the Treaty, so far as it affected the finances of this country. Her Majesty's then Ministers, under the Leadership of Lord Palmerston, had a large majority in this House, and on the 20th of February, in considerably less than two months from the first announcement, this House found itself committed to the substance of the French Treaty, so far as it affected the taxation of this country. These were very rapid and unexpected proceedings. The Conservative Party used every exertion to induce Her Majesty's then Ministers to conform to the precedent of 1787, but without success. When Mr. Pitt undertook to negotiate a Treaty of Commerce with France, how did he proceed? He negotiated the Treaty. He placed it before the commercial public, and so left

  759
  it for five months before he proposed it I to Parliament; and when he proposed it I to Parliament, he did not propose at once to incorporate the provisions of the Treaty in the Budget, but asked the consent of each House of Parliament to that Treaty by Resolution. Could there, Sir, be a greater difference between two modes of procedure, than between the mode of procedure adopted by Mr. Pitt, and the mode of procedure adopted by the Government of Lord Palmerston? I know that among the Members of this House, who cannot clearly recollect what occurred in 186!), the idea exists that Parliament has little or nothing to do with Commercial Treaties—that the conclusion of a Commercial Treaty is an affair of the Government, and that Parliamentary consent, if necessary at all, is a mere formality. No Member of this House, Sir, except he be a Member of the Government, acting on behalf of Her Majesty's Ministers, can propose the imposition of any tax, or the increase of any tax: and exactly upon the same principle no Member of this House, unless he be a Member of the Administration, and is authorized by the Government, can negotiate a Treaty, and least of all a Commercial Treaty; because a Commercial Treaty may affect the financial resources of the country for years to come; it may affect, as the Treaty of 1860 affected, and control, as the Treaty of 1860 controlled, the power of taxation, which is vested in this House, not for one year only, but for 10 or 20 years. I will now state to the House why, after the experience we had in 1860 of the secrecy and rapidity with which the last Commercial Treaty was negotiated, I have thought it my duty, on the first intimation that that Treaty is to be continued, renewed, or altered—I believe it is intended that this Treaty is to be altered—to intervene. I have, therefore, thought it my duty to ask the House to affirm that we have not forgotten the functions of the House in reference to this matter, because the House forgot its position in this matter. The conclusion of the Treaty would, to the extent of its provisions, incapacitate this House from performing its function of regulating and granting taxation. This abdication on the part of the House might be for an unlimited period, for any period which it might please the Government to assign as the duration of
  760
  the Treaty. I have reason, as I will presently show, to remember these circumstances. Under this Treaty the number of articles in the British tariff was reduced from 419 to 48. The duties abolished were almost entirely upon articles, not of necessity, but of luxury. It will be enough to state, in illustration of the sweeping nature of this Treaty, that the total amount of taxation which it either abolished or reduced—mind you, abolished or reduced—not for the year, nor for five years, but during the period of the existence of the Treaty—for 10 years Parliament deprived itself of all control over financial resources which yielded £1,700,000. If these Customs duties had been left, according to the natural increase and growth of Customs duties, they would have yielded more than £2,000,000 now. This is not a small item. I will not trouble the House by going through the principal articles affected by the Treaty—such as the reduction of the wine duties in favour of French wines, which created great jealousy on the part of the Spanish and Portuguese Governments. The number of articles upon which Customs duties had been levied, and which were thus cither abolished or reduced, was very large; these articles were chiefly the produce of France. That this should have been the case was the ordinary condition of Commercial Treaties between two countries; but the extraordinary condition of this Treaty is that this House bound itself to the Government of France not to impose or re-impose, during the period of the Treaty, these duties upon the produce of any country in the world. This extraordinary provision has, by the operation of this Treaty, been made fundamental as regards other Treaties—the foundation of engagements unspecified in other Treaties—and for the benefit of other countries. The direct engagement on the part of this country under this Treaty is with France only. The benefit which we receive in return for this abandonment of the power of taxation is reciprocated by France only, whilst the rest of the world gets the uncompensated benefit of our concession. Under this Treaty we can claim nothing from Germany, nothing from the United States, nothing from Austria, nothing from Belgium, or from Russia. The commerce of each of these States

  761
  profits by this Treaty at the expense of this country. Such are the provisions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day (Mr. Gladstone) declared to be consistent with the object of the Treaty; but they are provisions which I wish the House fully to understand before it commits itself to a renewal of this extraordinary engagement. I trust the House will allow me to verify what I have said by quoting the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his Financial Statement of the 10th of February, 1860, he said—
  "I come next, Sir, to the English covenants. England engages, with a limited power of exception, which we propose to exercise with respect only to two or three articles, to abolish immediately and totally all duties upon all manufactured goods. There will be a sweep, clean, entire, and absolute, of manufactured goods from the face of the British tariff."—[3 Hansard, clvi. 834.]
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "France is perfectly aware that our legislation makes no distinction between one nation and another, and that what we enact for her we shall at the same time enact for all the world."—[Ibid. 837.]
  I have said that I have had reason to remember the effects of this Treaty. Among the duties which were immediately abolished under its provisions were the duties on silk manufactures, and these included the duty of 15 per cent upon ribands, the article chiefly manufactured in Coventry at that time, and in a district extending from Coventry 10 miles northwards, including the town of Nuneaton, and several other populous manufacturing places. Mr. Disraeli and the Conservative Party in this House were kind enough to assist me in the endeavour to prevent the abolition of this duty from being immediate; but the Government were inexorable. The abolition of the duty was immediate. Parliament broke up, and in the month of September following I found myself the chairman of a relief committee in my own neighbourhood, with 22,000 persons to provide for beyond those who could obtain relief under the Poor Law. This state of things was, in great measure, produced by the suddenness with which this Treaty came into operation—an operation as sudden as the negotiations for the completion of the Treaty were rapid. Her Majesty the Queen, with her usual benevolence, subscribed
  762
  for the relief of the distressed workpeople. The Prince of Wales also subscribed, as did the right hon. Gentleman the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who himself had forced on the Treaty. I was employed for three winters in distributing some £47,000 to relieve the distress which had been occasioned by the operation of that Treaty among my constituents. But the effects of the Treaty were not restricted to my constituents. I remember that there were in Manchester eight firms of broad silk manufacturers, who petitioned in favour of the Treaty and the abolition of the Customs duties. I have a copy of their Petition now. Every single firm whose representative signed that Petition has since failed, and in my own district this branch of industry has been reduced to one-third or one-fourth of what the trade was in 1860. I believe not more than one-fourth of what it was then remains. We were told that we were behind the time, and our produce was inferior to that of France; but I have the satisfaction of knowing that at the first Exhibition of Paris the riband, which won the first prize from all the French ribands, was manufactured, within four miles of my house in Warwickshire. I think I have some reason, then, to remember what has been the operation of this French Treaty; and I am most anxious that this House should thus early, after we have received the intimation that the continuation or renewal of this Treaty is contemplated, remind Her Majesty's Ministers that without the consent of this House—and I trust that the consent of the House will not be given without due consideration—it is impossible either to renew, to alter, or to continue this Treaty with France, or to negotiate any other. Allow me, for the information of those hon. Members of the House who have not had the advantage or misfortune of being here so many years as myself, to show that this House must be a party to, and responsible for, any Commercial Treaty that is contracted. We have nothing directly to do with negotiations for a Treaty, anymore than we have the power of proposing taxation. The negotiation of a Commercial Treaty, like the negotiation of every other Treaty, is a function of the Executive Government, just as the proposal of every tax is delegated to them—that is their duty and privi-

  763
  lege; but the sanctioning of a Commercial Treaty is just as much the function of this House as is the consent which we are appointed to give or withhold from the proposals of the Government for taxation. In this very Treaty, the 5th Article, a very important one, begins in these words—
  "Her Britannic Majesty engages to recommend to Parliament to enable her to abolish the duties of importation on the following articles," &c, & c.
  The 5th Article begins—
  "Her Britannic Majesty engages also to propose to Parliament that the duties on the importation of French wines be at once reduced."
  And the 7th Article begins—
  "Her Britannic Majesty promises to recommend to Parliament to admit into the United Kingdom merchandise imported from France at a rate of duty equal to the Excise duty," & c.
  This House, then, is responsible for every Commercial Treaty. It is the function of this House to sanction or reject every Commercial Treaty. This power is identical, which the House possesses, either to accept or reject the proposal of the Government for the imposition of taxes. It is perfectly true that this House ought not to directly interfere with the negotiations of a Commercial Treaty. I know that it was the general feeling that, until he was duly authorized and appointed, the late Mr. Cobden outstepped his duty as a Member of Parliament by the part he took in the year 1860. What he did was no doubt prompted by an excess of zeal; but if he erred in the first instance, his error was subsequently condoned, and more than condoned, by his being appointed the Representative of this country for the purpose of carrying on the negotiations. All the more, however, is it the duty of this House to avoid, if possible, the difficulty which might be entailed by the House feeling itself unable to sanction the provisions of any Treaty which may have been negotiated. I know that this feeling weighed very heavily upon some Members of the Conservative Party in 1860. The circumstances of Europe at that time were somewhat critical. It was thought by some a very great advantage to this country that we should be on good terms with the Emperor of the French, and I know positively that this circumstance weighed very deeply with some Members of this House, who
  764
  otherwise might have been anxious to press some modification of the obligations which this country undertook by that Treaty. It is for this reason, Sir, I now invite an expression of opinion on the part of this House with regard to this important subject. As this Treaty must expire on the 31st of December next, I ask this House now to consider, I ask the commercial public now to consider, whether there are any provisions in that Treaty which, in their opinion, need alteration; and if that be their opinion, now is the time that they should approach Her Majesty's Government with their suggestions. Now is the time, and the only time, when, conveniently and safety, the commercial experience and opinion of the country can be brought to bear with a view to the future. I hope the House will forgive me for thus bringing under its notice the position in which we are placed. In the year 1860 the feeling was in favour of the system of free imports, to which, for nearly 20 years, this country has been bound to a great extent by tins Treaty—bound to the system of free imports from the whole world, whilst the expectation of Reciprocity is by this Treaty limited to our commerce with Prance only. For nearly 20 years, then, we have been fettered by this Treaty. In 1860 the expectation was rife that the great commercial countries of the world, that Europe and the United States would reciprocate the abandonment of import duties which this country had then adopted, and of their own accord freely follow our example in this respect. Sir, there is no such expectation now. Russia shows no sign of an intention to relax her high tariff. Some persons speak of Russia as if her Government were ignorant on this subject. But Russia reduced her import duties, with a view to the adoption of Free Trade, as far back as the year 1815. She tried the system for five or six years, but found it to be so ruinous that she abandoned it in 1821, and never after renewed it. Again, in 1816, the United States largely reduced their import duties; but they, too, found the system so ruinous that they raised their duties in 1828, and have ever since, though not so steadily as Russia, refused to abandon their Customs duties. With reference to this commercial legislation and these commercial engagements, it behoves the House to consider the

  765
  political temper of the world. The tendency of the world, I need hardly say, is now in the direction of Imperialism. You have the German Empire established, the Austria-Hungarian Empire consolidated, and the Empire of Russia extended. France has not abandoned an Imperial policy in matters commercial because she is a Republic; and there is no commercial policy more Imperial than the commercial policy of the United States of America. What are the United States but a Federation of Sovereign States? The Republic, which combines these Sovereign States, by this Federal Union is essentially Imperial. Look at her financial policy, her Imperial power, and her central combining Republican Government, the seat of which is at Washington, yet the Central Government cannot impose direct taxation except in time of war. The imposition of direct taxation is the privilege of each Sovereign State, and they guard that privilege against the Federal power with the utmost jealousy. In times of peace the only financial resource of the Federal power of America is taxation by Customs duties. That distingushed man, General Grant, ex-President of the United States, visited Birmingham last autumn; and, on that occasion, the able junior Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) made an eloquent speech—such as, indeed, he usually makes—in the expectation that he would receive from the ex-President some encouragement to hope that the United States would abandon their protective system. And what said General Grant? He said that he had not been accustomed to make political speeches until he came to England; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman who had been so eloquent, and whom he had found hospitable as a host, that the example of England had been firmly impressed upon her descendants in the United States; that they had seen England's commercial greatness and power grow up under a protective system of Customs duties; that the people of the United States would follow the example of the people of England, and that when their commercial prosperity and power became as great as that of England had been, perhaps they might adopt the system of free imports. You will always find an Imperial system of government disposed to levy taxation by means of Customs duties on imports, just for the
  766
  same reasons as that which induced the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America to prescribe that system. You may, in the face of this Imperialistic movement throughout the world, call this retrogressive policy, or what you like; but it has become, none the less, but the more, a duty incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to consider this matter most carefully and thoughtfully before they again commit themselves to the system of free imports in favour of all the world, by a renewal of this Treaty, under which they have Reciprocity from one State only—France. Apart from the question of commercial gain—whatever the House may think of the economical disadvantages of Customs duties—there is no doubt that taxation by Customs duties is the form of taxation most easily levied throughout a wide Empire—in the distant portions of a scattered Empire. That is a consideration which at once recommends it to the Minister of an Empire. I have heard great surprise expressed that Prince Bismarck has recommended a high Customs tariff for the German Empire. When I heard that that most estimable of Sovereigns, the Emperor of Germany, had been twice assailed, and at last wounded, I felt grieved. Have we not heard of Nihilism, and of the revolutionary and discontented spirit prevailing in Germany and in Russia? May it not have occurred to Prince Bismarck that, if he needed fresh taxation, it would be well if, by the form of taxation he should recommend, he might revive the filial feeling of the German people towards their Emperor, to whom they had looked up as to a father? Was it not wise on the part of Prince Bismarck to sacrifice some economical advantage, if by the establishment of a system of taxation that, without extreme pressure, would favour the feeling of filial devotion in the nation towards their Emperor as the Chief of a paternal Government, while it would furnish the means of cementing the Empire he had so successfully laboured to erect? I venture, then, to move the words that stand in my name; and I do so in the hope that the Government will take the same broad view that they took in 1787, and give the House an assurance that they will not imitate the Government of Lord Palmerston, and deny to us, and thus deny to the country, full opportunity of considering

  767
  the provisions of any Treaty which, they may renew or propose. So that, before the House of Commons is asked, as it must be asked, to give its sanction to any new or renewed Commercial Treaty, we shall each and all of us be assured that we shall have time to consult our constituents. If any engagement is to be entered into between this country and Franco, I hope it will be with France alone, leaving this country at liberty to negotiate with the other Powers; not compromising our position towards the whole world through France, but negotiating with France, for herself only, so as to secure Reciprocity with France, whilst our hands shall remain free to seek Reciprocity from the other nations of the world. I hope that any future Commercial Treaty will be in the sense of Mr. Pitt's Treaty of 1787—that the Conservative Ministry of the present day will follow the example of that great Conservative statesman, by affording ample opportunity for consideration and inquiry, before they propose that this House should commit itself to any scheme they may have in hand.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "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,"—(Mr. Newdegate,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that he had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with much interest, as he had given them a new idea of the intention of protective duties, for it appeared that those duties were levied in Russia to protect the life of the Emperor. The hon. Member was enthusiastic in favour of his old scheme. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had lately read in a newspaper that there were only three great statesmen now living who believed in Protection—namely, Prince Bismarck, Lord Bateman, and Mr. Mac Iver. But it was
  768
  plain that a fourth might be added to these in the person of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Now, looking at his Amendment, he must say that it was well worthy the consideration of the House, though he might say that he was rather doubtful about the grammar—he thought it was bad, but it was good sense; and he was very glad that the hon. Member had had the courage, sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, to move an Amendment to the Budget of his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, although they had two nights' debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), the subject had not been thoroughly thrashed out even on that occasion. He had himself intended to propose an Amendment at a subsequent stage of the Budget proceedings; but his noble Friend on the front Opposition Bench got up and asked him, as a matter of convenience, not to move it then, and he had acceded to his request, though at the time he thought he was rather pooh-poohed by his noble Friend. In fact, his Amendment was rather too good for the noble Lord. However, he thanked the hon. Gentleman opposite for giving him the present opportunity of expressing his views on the Budget. No policy could be carried out without involving more or less expenditure, and that was the meaning of the expression of the Prime Minister; but the expenditure depended upon policy. He presumed that the reason why his hon. Friend had brought forward this Amendment was because his hon. Friend felt as he felt—that on many important occasions the policy which the Government were going to adopt had been unduly kept back from the House. The House had been kept far too long in the dark concerning it. The hon. Gentleman, in his Amendment, advocated the desirability of not
  "Recognizing or accepting 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."
  Well, their opinion on the great lines of policy had been very often ignored and their power limited, but eventually they had the bill to pay. When anybody talked of late about the foreign

  769
  policy of the Government, they were told—"It's no use talking about it; let bygones be bygones." If the policy of the Government were abandoned, there would be something in that advice; but they found that the Government intended to proceed on exactly the same line on which they had formerly proceeded. At a late Conservative dinner, Lord Salisbury said the Government, for the sake of peace, had given up a great deal, but they could give up no more. It was the foreign policy of the Government—a policy which they seemed resolved to persevere in—which entailed the enormous military expenditure, and that expenditure was the heaviest burthen of the enormous Revenue which had to be raised. He need not dwell upon the details of the Budget; it was a Budget which might be summed up in the sentence in which the moralist advised the young man—"Always live within your income, even if you have to borrow money to do it with." It was the old story—the Liberals came in and earned money; the Conservatives came in and spent it. The Liberals were the drudges of politics, who earned the money; the Conservatives were the Gentlemen who succeeded them, and spent it. ["Question."] Well, he thought the question was the Budget. ["No, no!"] When all this money had been borrowed to carry out the policy of the Government, he was rather surprised at the course taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who condemned the proposed remission of the Income Tax by the late Prime Minister in 1874. The First Lord of the Admiralty said we had not a ship or a man too many. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) thoroughly agreed with that statement. If they wore to carry out the policy the Government intended should be carried out, in his humble opinion, they had far too few men, because they were told that the Government were resolved to do its duty to the world. If this little Island were to do its duty to the world in the sense of the Government, three times the money asked for at present would be required for that purpose. He wished Ministers, who regarded it as their duty to be interfering in every part of Europe, would bear in mind the speech in which their Colleague, Lord Cranbrook, had asked what divine right this country had to go crusading in every part of the world? The present was not the
  770
  right time to call upon the country to raise an enormous sum of money. There were, of course, two opinions about the depression now existing in the country. One was the opinion held on the other side of the House, that it arose from four bad harvests, one hard frost, and the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank. The other was the opinion prevalent on this side of the House, that, although those causes had something to do with it, the commercial depression had been greatly aggravated by the enormous expenditure which had been imposed, and by the feeling of insecurity which the foreign policy of the Government had created. ["Question."] He knew that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House did not wish him to go at any great length into this matter. He had heard right lion. Gentlemen on the front Ministerial Bench declare that theirs was a policy of Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform. He need not say more with respect to their policy of peace, than that they had already two wars in hand, and any number on the stocks. As to retrenchment, the country was now called upon to raise a larger Revenue than it had ever previously been required to furnish; and as to the reforms effected by the present Administration, the less said the better. He had said that England was engaged in two wars; but they had heard that night that one of those wars had been brought to a conclusion. [Cheers.] He heard the cheers of hon. Members on the opposite Benches who rejoiced that peace had been made; but he condemned the war in spite of the success that had attended it, for he could see nothing to be delighted at in the fortunate issue of a policy of triumphant wrong. What the cost of the war in Africa would be no one knew, and why was it carried on? He supposed it was to retrieve what was called the military situation. In other words, revenge, because they had been defeated in one battle. He altogether condemned the spending of money for such a purpose. He, therefore, gave his hearty support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, not because he thought that Commercial Treaties were the only Treaties which should be brought under the review of the House, but because that Amendment struck at the neglect of the opinion and sentiment of

  771
  the House; and because he felt that if the views embodied in the Amendment were carried out, it would be more difficult in future to involve the country in those ruinous enterprises which had done so much to bring discredit upon them, and which, if not prevented in the future, would involve them in still greater disasters and distress.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, it was much to be regretted that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle should, in seconding the very important Amendment introduced by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, have favoured the House with a speech that must have been prepared for some other occasion, and sought to divert attention from the real point at issue. What had the speech of the hon. Baronet, save a little at the commencement and conclusion, to do with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill? The renewal or abandonment of our commercial relations with France, however, had a great deal to do with it. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) should depart this life, his epitaph might be—"Estimable in all relations of private life, he gave us sour claret cheap, and ruined the weavers of Coventry." [Murmurs.] The motto of the Cobden Club was—"Free Trade, Peace, Goodwill amongst Nations"—good intentions enough, no doubt; but they had all heard of the way that was paved with good intentions. Well, the word "reciprocity" was a very much abused word; but he ventured to think that even Mr. Cobden never meant that the people of this country should fight the battle of Free Trade single - handed against the world. Where, except in England, he asked, could they find any statesman who seriously advocated unqualified Free Trade? The good intentions of the Cobden Club were not sufficient; and he thought that, without Reciprocity in some form, true Free Trade could not exist. They must be permitted to sell as well as to buy. All barriers between one nation and another should be broken down, and there should be the most unrestricted interchange of commodities between the nations of the world. That was the kind of Free Trade which he wished to see, and he was not the only man in England who wished to see it. It was not Free Trade at all unless they could sell with advantage as they
  772
  bought, and they were not so enabled under the Commercial Treaty with France; they were not so under their commercial relations generally with the rest of the world. Why did the French people meet us so hardly in the case of sugar, for instance? Was it not the belief that we in this country were steadfastly and firmly wedded at all hazard to the principles of Free Trade, and that we should never modify them? He asked that we should look at the circumstances of each case by themselves; that we should be Free Traders as far as it was practicable, but that we should be Protectionists where it was our interest to be so. That was something very different from advocating Free Trade at all hazards. He would only trespass for a very few moments more upon the attention of the House; but he wished to make one quotation which many hon. Gentlemen opposite might have seen or heard of for the first time. It was from a book called Smith's Wealth of Nations—
  "It must sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods, when some foreign nations restrain by high duties the importation of some of our manufactures in their country. This case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties upon some or all of their manufactures coming into our country."
  Such was the opinion of Adam Smith, and he commended it to the study of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Reciprocity, in his (Mr. Mac Iver's) view, meant, as in any good dictionary it was defined to mean, "equal mutual rights or benefits to be yielded or enjoyed." Reciprocity involved the great principle of fair trade as well as Free Trade; that we should encourage the mutual interchange of commodities. The commercial relations existing between this country and France did not meet his idea of Free Trade. What did they get from, and what did they give to, France? From the Board of Trade Returns he found that they imported to the value of about £45,000,000 of goods of one kind or another from France, and that they sent to France in exchange £25,000,000, of which only £14,000,000 worth could be said to be manufactured goods, the residue consisting of raw material. M. Michel Chevalier well stated French policy on this subject, in writing to the Liver-

  773
  pool Chamber of Commerce two years ago, when he said—
  "We collect Customs duties to protect the manufacturing interest, and the surtaxe d'entrepôt was for the protection of the shipping interests of France, by making it impossible for foreifin nations to compete with her shippers for the convoying of a largo part of her imports."
  He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in his place, because he wished to tell him that, as regarded our commercial relations with France, he knew nothing whatever about the most important points affecting the shipping interests of the country. He wished to explain to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the surtaxe d'entrepôt, no matter what the theory might be, was, owing to our geographical position, practically a differential duty against Great Britain. England was the only country from which foreign produce was likely to be re-exported to France, and this was a special tax of about 30 francs a-ton against such shipments. They hoard a great deal, but he must say chiefly for election purposes, about what the Opposition would like to do. Let him point out what they had done. The French Treaty was unquestionably very much their work. He charged against the right hon. Member for Birmingham and his Friends that in this Treaty they reduced the duties on the luxuries of the rich; but they did nothing whatever that could in any way benefit the working man in England. ["Oh!"] Was that not true? Would the right hon. Member for Birmingham contradict it? They had done some things, no doubt. They interfered with sugar refining in Great Britain, and the ruin followed, not only of the sugar refiners of England, but of the sugar-growing Colonies, on whom the policy re-acted. We were a nation of producers; the consumers were the drones; but lie knew, as a carrier, that he was now taking to French and Italian ports cotton which, under other circumstances, would come to this country. This showed that other nations wore now making for themselves what we used to make for them, and they were enabled to do this by their restrictive duties, which we could never induce them to abandon unless we had something to give them in return. The silks and woollens we got from France could, in many instances, be made better
  774
  and just about as cheaply in England, very little, indeed, would turn the scale. The extra cost of home-made goods—½d. or ¾d. a-yard—would be an inappreciable tax on the consumer. Hon. Members did not know whether their coats were made in France or England. [Laughter.] The loss to the English manufacturer was real indeed. He was at a disadvantage as compared with the more extended range of customers of the French manufacturer, for he must find his only market at home—he was shut out of our own Colonies as well as France. This Commercial Treaty with France was a thoroughly bad bargain, and he desired to see a new one more advantageous to British interests. Let hon. Members remember that John Stuart Mill had written—
  "A country cannot be expected to renounce the power of taxing foreigners, unless foreigners will in return practise towards itself the same forbearance. The only mode in which a country can save itself from being a loser by the revenue duties imposed by other countries on its commodities is to impose corresponding revenue duties on theirs."
  Hon. Members opposite could hardly get over that. The day was gone by when mere abuse would be considered a sufficient reply.
  MR. PEASEthought that the House would agree with him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very much to be congratulated that evening, as a diversion had been made in his favour. They had come down to hear the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and they had had a discussion upon Free Trade. With regard to the arguments which had just been used, he was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to dispose of them in a very few sentences. His great object in rising was not to discuss the Protectionist measures of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, or the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Tver), but to make a few remarks upon the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on introducing the Bill, had stated that they should all feel that the demand this year upon the National Exchequer was unusually great. He thought it was generally agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking for a very considerable sum of money. He was not about

  775
  to find fault with the Government on the manner of defining payments which they proposed and to which he objected; but he thought that the policy which was being pursued cost the country a great deal of money, and would cause much further expenditure. It behoved them to look at what the state of the country really was at the present time, when they were indulging in a foreign policy which would require a large expenditure. If there was any trade or description of industry which required protection at the present moment, it must be agriculture. But would any hon. Member be bold enough to come down to the House to ask that corn and meat, or any of those articles the cheapness of which had done so much to vindicate the policy of the country, should have Protectionist duties placed upon them? And what was the state of the industries of the country? The manufacturing districts of the North, especially on the western side of the country, were at the present moment almost paralyzed. The iron and coal trades were in a very depressed condition. Whether they looked to the commercial, the agricultural, or the manufacturing interests of the country, they found them all in the same state. And when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and asked for an abnormal amount of taxation—5d. in the pound Income Tax—and no remission whatever of taxation, it became a very serious matter. The House might know by the state of the Poor Law Returns what the condition of the country must have been during the last two years. The figures of those Returns, showing the percentage of paupers, spoke for themselves; and in that state of things the Government ought to use every possible effort to stop the enormous expenditure going on abroad and at home. They had an extravagant war in South Africa, and it seemed to him that they had a Governor there who had violated every instruction sent to him, and who had acted in direct opposition to all the directions as to policy which he had received from the Home Government, and at that moment was plunging them into a war which was a disgrace to their Christianity and civilization. The war was condemned by Her Majesty's Government, and would cost them no less than from £5,000,000
  776
  to £10,000,000. Whilst things were in that state abroad, they might look for some check upon the expenditure at home. He had gone pretty carefully through the various items in the Estimates. There were various charges for education, for the police, and for grants which were made in aid of local taxation, and in almost every Department of the State the expenditure was increased. With regard to education, it seemed to him that the noble Lord the present President of the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon) made a very considerable mistake in allowing the additional grants from the Government in aid of local taxation as regarded education. He would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a paragraph in the Report of last year, in which it was said that the demand for educational purposes from the Imperial resources would become still greater. By the Education Act they had again placed local hands in the Imperial pocket; and they had also done the same thing by giving an opportunity of borrowing for purposes neither national or Imperial. He believed that these facilities for obtaining money for education, for sanitary, and other purposes, was producing a very considerable waste. It was very easy to borrow; but it was very difficult to repay. He had not the slightest doubt in his own mind that if local taxation had been more resorted to for purely local purposes, they would have had the Imperial Exchequer not only left alone, but the local taxation considerably lower than at the present moment. He made these remarks because he felt that this country, if it were going again to be prosperous, must adopt the rules by which it had become prosperous, must practise economy at the present moment. Economy had to be exercised by all classes of the people, and ought also to be exercised by the Government, both in regard to their foreign and home policy. A reduction of expenditure seemed to him to be the only means of restoring that prosperity, the absence of which they so much deplored.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDwas not going to follow the discussion into all the questions that had been raised, for he did not think that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill was necessarily con-

  777
  nected with the last Commercial Treaty with France. He wished to make a few remarks upon a portion of this Bill—namely, its provisions with regard to Income Tax. The incidence of the Income Tax was, as the House knew, of a very harsh character; and he understood it was the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to mitigate the hardship inflicted upon persona who were made collectors of Income Tax against their will. If his object in introducing the 23rd clause into the Bill were only to meet the objection raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth with regard to the forced collection of the tax, he would not move the rejection of the clause; but he should move a provision to except the City of London from its operation. There was another matter upon which he begged to give Notice that he should propose in Committee a clause which should require all the collectors of Income Tax and of Inhabited House Duty to give a statement to the taxpayer of the demands made upon him. He should propose that the statement should contain the assessed value of the property, its nature, and the rate at which it was charged. At the present moment the collector of local rates gave a most perfect statement, showing the nature of all the rates levied, and the value at which the property was taken. It was indefensible that a collector should be allowed to demand the Queen's taxes without furnishing a similar document. He would offer no objection to the second reading of the Bill, and trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not object to the Proviso which he wished to introduce.
  MR. BOURKE: It may be convenient that I should now say something on the subject of the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire; and I am sure that, if necessary, the House will afterwards listen to any observations which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may wish to make. There is one observation made by the hon. Gentleman with which I agree, and that is, if the House is really to take notice of the Commercial Treaties which are likely to be negotiated within the next few months or years, now is the time to speak out. The Government will be happy to hear, not only what Members of this House, but what persons versed in commercial mat-
  778
  ters throughout the country, may have to say upon the subject. I think it would be well for the House to reflect upon the character of Commercial Treaties generally. If the House will allow me, I will state in a few words my own opinion with respect to them. There are two kinds of Commercial Treaties—one which contains the "most favoured nation clause," and the other, which is a general tariff Treaty. For many years past, foreign nations have made two kinds of tariffs—first, a general tariff, relating to all nations; and, secondly, a conventional tariff, which covers the importation of goods from countries with which they have Treaties or Conventions. Unless a nation has made a Treaty containing a "most favoured nation clauses" with those countries, it will be treated under the general tariff, and not the Convention tariff. Then, with regard to tariff Treaties, England has but one—the Treaty of 1860—of which Ave have heard so much to-night. That Treaty, as we all know, was passed in consequence of the desire shown by France, in 1860, to relax her Protectionist policy. But after that Treaty had been concluded with France, others were made with Holland, Belgium, and other nations, all framed on the model of the Anglo-French Treaty. The consequence which immediately followed was a general lowering of tariffs all over Europe. The advantage derived there from by this country was not merely the advantage it derived from the increase of its commercial intercourse with France, but the advantages derived also from these other Treaties with other nations, from all of which we received the most-favoured nation treatment. In measuring, then, the advantages which we obtained by the Treaty of 1860, we must not only consider the advantages we gained by the lowering of the tariffs in France, but we must also take into consideration the advantages derived by our export trade all over the Continent under most favoured nation Treaties which we have with all European Powers except Spain. I do not think it is necessary for me to expatiate on the advantages which this country gained by that Treaty, because a very few figures will show the enormous increase in our trade since 1860; and statistics will speak far more eloquently than I can do on this subject. I will

  779
  take three periods—the year 1859, before the Treaty was negotiated, and the years 1866 and 1877, after it. The value of the goods exported from the United Kingdom to all parts of the world in 1859 was £130,000,000; in 1866 it was £188,000,000; and in 1877 it was £199,000,000. Next, taking the particular tariff countries—Belgium, France, Germany, Holland, and Italy, we exported to them, in 1859, £26,000,000; in 1866, £45,000,000; and in 1877, £47,000,000. Contrast that with the trade to the three non-Treaty countries—Russia, Spain, and Portugal. In 1859, our exports to them were £7,119,000; in 1866—five years after the Treaties with these other countries—it was £7,258,000, or very nearly stationary; and in 1877, £6,190,000. That shows the enormous difference between the Treaty and the non-Treaty countries. In the non-Treaty countries we have an almost stationary condition of trade; while in the tariff Treaty countries we have, as I have shown, a very large increase. Next, let me give a few figures of the imports into the United Kingdom. In 1858–9–60, the imports into the United Kingdom from France averaged, in round numbers, £16,000,000. For the three years—1875–7—they were £45,000,000, an increase of nearly 200per cent. The exports of domestic produce from this country to France in the years 1858–60 averaged about £5,000,000. In 1875–77 they averaged more than £15,000,000, an increase of 300 per cent. I think these figures are the best answer I can give with regard to the success of these Treaties. There can be no doubt that things are in a very unsatisfactory state in foreign countries, for it is quite clear that Protectionist theories are making progress in many nations. I cannot feel, for one moment, that that is any reason for retracing our steps; and, on the contrary, I believe that the great Free Trade theories are growing stronger and more powerful every day in this country. I do not know whether it is the result of universal suffrage or not; but I am rather inclined to think that universal suffrage does at first tend to Protection, and until the voice of the consumer makes itself heard, I think it is very likely we shall see a continuance of those theories. But what would be the position of England if the Treaty
  780
  with France were to lapse? We should have to submit to about 20 per cent higher duties being imposed on our exports all round, for we should simply be put under the new general tariff, which, though it did not promise to be so objectionable as the existing one, would certainly be far less favourable to our traders than the existing Convention Treaty. There are other topics raised by the hon. Member, such as shipping, into which I need not go; but there can be no doubt of one thing—that Commercial Treaties do insure what commercial men, above all things, require, even above low duties, and that is certainty. Under the Treaties, commercial men are able to make their contracts and their orders in advance, which is what is to them absolutely necessary. I know, from interviews I have had with various gentlemen every day, that there are persons who are at this moment suffering from the present uncertainty about the French Commercial Treaty, because they do not know what the French tariff will be six months hence. As I have already said before, the negotiations with respect to the new Treaty are going on; but the French Government, as is very natural from its point of view, says that it is impossible for it to enter into any negotiations with regard to a special tariff until they have settled what their general tariff is to be. That general tariff is now before the Legislature; and I am afraid it will be some time before its discussion is concluded. The arrangement which they have offered—and which I certainly think we shall accept—is that the present Convention shall continue for six months after the promulgation of their general tariff. That is the arrangement which has been proposed to us, and which we shall probably concur in. When the arrangements for the general tariff are concluded, we shall thus have six months after that for negotiation; and I do not think that these legislative changes in France will take place very rapidly, so that this country will have plenty of time to look round. With regard to two or three observations which were made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), I would say, in the first place, that it is no duty of mine here to-night to defend the exact procedure followed in the Treaty of 1860. It may very well be that it would have been better to have given a longer

  781
  time before all the Budget arrangements were made. But, then, that Treaty was made by Mr. Cobden taking advantage of the particular disposition of the Emperor of France just at that time, and he was anxious to get the Treaty concluded as speedily as possible. Considering the enormous amount of detail gone through, I do not think the negotiations took a very long time. Perhaps it would have been better to have proceeded by Resolution, as was done in the case of Mr. Pitt's Treaty of 1787, and that, undoubtedly, would have given the House a greater opportunity of discussing the details. But that is not a matter before us now. There is no reason why the House should ever abandon the functions it possesses of considering Commercial Treaties; but that, again, is a very different thing from binding the House in the way proposed by this Resolution. Parliament, in fact, has already practically full control whenever any Customs duty is proposed to be altered, so that in all tariff Treaties the House has full control. Considering what the Forms of this House are, I do not think it is ever very likely that any Commercial Treaty would be carried without the House having many opportunities of giving an opinion on the subject generally.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The House had the figures before them in that very Treaty.
  MR. BOURKE: No doubt; and, certainly, in 1860, there were many divisions, both in this House and, I think, in the House of Lords. Certainly, there were many long debates in both Houses. I can quite understand that it is possible that a Treaty can be made which it would not be formally necessary to bring before this House; but I do not think there is any danger of that occurring in a way to preclude Parliament from giving its opinion. Another objection to my hon. Friend's Resolution is that it would be perfectly impossible for this House to negotiate the details of any Treaty. Anybody who knows what it is to negotiate a Treaty, even on one particular article, knows what it is, and how awkward, how perfectly impossible, it is for this House to negotiate any one particular portion. Much less, of course, could that be possible in regard to the whole tariff. It is, of course, all very well to lay down the rule that you
  782
  can make a better Treaty here in this House than you can by negotiations outside.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I expressly guarded myself against that assumption. I especially said that that was not our function.
  Me. BOURKE: I am very glad to be corrected by my hon. Friend. It is not what we think a good Treaty that has to be aimed at. You have to aim at something which both sides will think a good Treaty, and to attain that there must be give and take. This House cannot, in fact, enter into all the intricacies of these negotiations; and if it did, it would strike a deep blow at Ministerial responsibility. That is a principle which we should strive at every point to maintain. But this Motion takes it away from Ministers, both in regard to negotiating a Treaty, and in regard to the way in which it is to be carried out. Under these circumstances, I am afraid Her Majesty's Government cannot agree with this Resolution. At the same time, I agree most thoroughly with my hon. Friend that this question is very well worth consideration; and now that new Treaties are likely to be made with foreign Powers, I think the more that this question is considered, in and out of the House, the better.
  MR. NEWDEGATEconfessed that he did not quite understand the answer which the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had given him; for he had certainly never said that it was the function of the House of Commons to negotiate a Treaty. As the existing state of the negotiations, it appeared, from what the hon. Gentleman said, were in suspense, until the tariff of France had been formulated, it was, therefore, perfectly in vain to ask for further information. With the permission of the House, he would for the present withdraw his Motion, upon the understanding that any Treaty that might be negotiated would be submitted to the House in accordance with Constitutional precedent.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

VALUATION OF LANDS AND ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 144.]
(The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Cross.)
VALUATION OF LANDS AND ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL— [BILL 144.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he strongly objected to the progress of this Bill, for, as he read it, its principles were entirely opposed to those rules of valuation now in force in England.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)replied that the matter was very easily explained. Section 37 of the Poor Law Act of 1845 provided for a particular mode of valuation and assessment. In 1854, the Valuation Act for Scotland was passed, and that had since been amended by several Statutes, which provided a general mode of valuation, on which all local taxes other than poor rates were now levied in Scotland. But certain Railway and other Companies assessed under the Act of 1845 were in the habit of disputing the valuation of their undertakings for the purposes of the poor rate, and the result had been to lead to much litigation and expense. The only object of the Bill was to do away with this exceptional legislative enactment, which had proved most expensive and detrimental, and to allow these properties to be assessed on the same basis as all others. Whether it was necessary to amend the present Valuation Act was another question, into which he would not now enter. His only object was to remove the expense and anomaly at present created by the difference between the two Acts.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, in England properties were first assessed on their actual rent, or annual value, and subsequently, according to their nature, were subjected to certain deductions, so as to bring out the actual rateable value. In Scotland, although the same principle had been enacted by the Legislature, it had never been carried out with the same care and precision as in England. The last Report on this subject recommended that the system pursued in Scotland should be assimilated to the system pursued in England. Of course, he was aware that it would save money and trouble not to carry out the English system; but it was the only scientific means by which they could arrive at the
  784
  true rateable value; and unless the Government really proposed to have one system in Scotland and another in England, he could not understand how they could expect this Bill to pass. After hearing the explanation of the Lord Advocate, he was more than ever convinced that the Bill was an undesirable one, and, therefore, he would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. G. Hubbard.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, that in every county and in every borough in Scotland there was an annual valuation roll made out, according to the terms of which all taxes were to be levied, and the electoral roll was made up. That was found to be a safe and speedy and cheap form of obtaining the valuation upon which taxes should be levied. But there was one single exception to that system—the poor rate was not levied upon that valuation. The Poor Law Boards throughout Scotland, who were intrusted with the compilation of the roll for the purposes of the poor rate, had found that Railway Companies had caused them a great deal of trouble and expense, and they were most anxious to adopt the ordinary valuation roll as the basis of assessment for the poor rate. If the general system were to be altered, that must be done by an amendment of the Act of 1854. By opposing the present Bill, the right hon. Member for the City of London insisted upon the Parochial Boards being involved in litigation and expense, instead of taking the course which they wished to pursue. In 1870 a Select Committee of that House reported in favour of that which was now proposed to be done by this Bill—namely, that the anomaly should be abolished between two different valuations existing together for the purpose of taxation. There was no question raised here except whether the anomaly that now existed should continue in force, and whether there should be a separate valuation for a single local rate which was the occasion of difficulty and expense to the ratepayer.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that last year several deputations came up from Parochial Boards in Scotland, and they

  785
  assured many of the Scotch Members that this clause to which the learned Lord Advocate had referred was the subject of a great many conflicts with the Railway Companies in Scotland, and that they were very anxious that this Bill should pass. As there was great unanimity in this matter, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that this was a most important matter. The principle of these deductions was well established. It was recognized that there should be a deduction of 5 per cent from the gross annual rental in the case of land; whereas in the case of houses they were subject to 20 per cent deduction. If this system were abolished, house property would suffer to the extent of 15 per cent. If the deduction were allowed to be abolished in Scotland, it would be said that, in justice and common sense, the same rule must be applied to valuation in England. If the Lord Advocate would insert the 37th clause of the Act of 1854, he would not object to the Bill; for he quite admitted that railways and canals were of an exceptional character, and required exceptional treatment. He objected to any treatment of houses and canals different to the system which was being pursued in the Valuation Bill for England now before the House. He could see no reason why they should pass in the same Session two Bills—one regulating the valuation of land and houses in England, and subjecting them to the deductions of from 5 to 20 per cent in order to arrive at their rateable value, while in Scotland the same thing should not be done.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYobserved, that in Scotland they desired to get rid of the anomaly of the local rates being levied on two different valuations, as it was found to be a great practical inconvenience. It was to remove that anomaly—in the desirability of which all parties were agreed—that the present Bill was introduced.
  MR. FORTESCUE HARRISONremarked, that all Scotch Members were agreed as to the desirability of this Bill becoming law.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (MR. WATSON)said, that the Scottish people were very amenable to reason in questions of taxation, and he did not think there
  786
  was any desire on their part to bear an undue share of burdens. But for several years past the Parochial Boards and the ratepayers throughout the country had experienced great difficulty and inconvenience from having a separate basis of assessment for the poor rate; and they had come to the conclusion that it cost them a good deal more out of pocket to keep up the two valuation rolls than it would to put the poor rate upon the same footing as their other local taxes.
  MR. PAGETwished to take an opportunity of saying that he did not consider that, because a Bill was brought in for Scotland affirming a certain principle, it at all followed that the same principle was to be introduced into England. He liked Scotch Members to settle their own affairs in their own way; in England, they had always worked on a different system, and they considered that they had done so with good reason. In rating houses and land, they had held that if they were to rate them upon the gross value an injustice would be committed. House property, it was felt, required deductions from the gross rental, which did not apply in the case of land. And in the Bill now before the House for the valuation of land in England was laid down a scale which made a considerable difference between the deductions in the case of lands and the deductions in the case of houses. He thought it was right that when the English Bill came on for discussion Scotch Members would do them the justice to allow them to manage their business in their own manner.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, this was a question affecting the increase of taxation in Scotland, and if the principle of the Bill now before the Committee were adopted the same arguments would be applied to England. If Scotland was to be dealt with absolutely separate from England, and was not to be taken as a precedent, he should have nothing to say; but he saw now, plainly, that in giving their sanction to this arrangement they were permitting an argument to be raised against themselves for the application of the same principle to England. It would be said that "what you have done for Scotland you cannot say is wrong in England, and you must collect your Queen's taxes upon the gross annual value, instead of upon the rateable net

  787
  value upon which they ought to be levied." For these reasons, he should press his Amendment, unless the Government postponed the consideration of the Bill until the English Valuation Bill was brought on.
  Motion negatived.
  Clauses 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Repeal of s. 37 of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 83, and s. 3 of 30 & 31 Vict, c. 80).
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, that this clause was one in which a proper equitable provision ought to be inserted. There was no doubt that assessments ought to be made upon the rateable value, and that proper deductions ought to be made in accordance with a scale. It was the laziness of the Scotch which prevented their adopting the scale recommended by Parliamentary Committees. He, therefore, begged to propose that it be inserted in that part of the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Amendment of 37 & 38 Vict. c. 20).
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERY moved, in page 3, line 26, to leave out from "if," inclusive, to end of clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER SIR WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER moved, in page 3, after Clause 8, to insert the following clause:—
  (As to ascertaining the annual value of mines and minerals.)
  "The yearly rent or value of all mines and minerals and of the works connected therewith shall be ascertained in manner following (that is to say): all surface and underground works, shafts and adits, engines, machinery, plant, tramways, private railways, canals, and railway sidings connecting such mines with any railway or canal constructed or maintained under the authority of any Act of Parliament, or with any public river by which such minerals are conveyed, or with any works at which such minerals are manufactured; and all land and buildings (not being dwelling-houses or workshops) occupied in connection with and for the purposes of such mines and minerals, shall be regarded as part of such mines and minerals and included in the valuation thereof, and the yearly rent or value of such mines and minerals including as aforesaid shall be calculated in each year at the rate of per cent, of the lordship paid for the quantity of minerals gotten from
  788
  such mines in the immediately preceding year, or (where such minerals are not let) of the fair letting value thereof in the same parish."
  He said that railways were increasing, whereas mines were always decreasing in value. For that reason, he proposed the insertion of this clause; and he proposed to insert 25 per cent of the lordship paid for the minerals as the criterion of the yearly rent. The clause was in accordance with the principle which had been adopted with regard to railways, and evidence was given before the Select Committee on the Valuation of Lands and Assessments Bill of 1870, which made out a stronger case for relieving mines than railways.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON)said, that he could not accept this clause, which would make an entire change in the system of rating. In the case of railways they were compelled to resort to a very artificial system of valuation, for they were obliged to value them in a very special manner, because they were situate in a great many parishes. So they had resorted to the system of taking the railways as a whole; and, after making proper deductions for the expenses of working, they had assessed the annual value of the railway, and then they divided the amount so found amongst the different parishes through which the railways ran according to mileage. That, no doubt, was an artificial system; but they had been compelled to adopt it for want of a better. He did not think there was any reason for adopting the same principle with regard to mines; for, if they did, in all similar eases—such as iron-works and other descriptions of property—artificial systems would have to be adopted which would make wholesale changes upon the Act. Railways were rated exceptionally under Clause 37 of the Act of 1854.
  Amendment negatived.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

GREAT SEAL BILL [Lords]— [BILL 180.]
(Mr. Attorney General.)
GREAT SEAL BILL [Lords]— [BILL 180.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he should like to know something about the Bill, inasmuch as it contained certain clauses in red ink, indicating an addition to the National Expenditure. He could not understand the meaning of the 5th clause of the Bill, in which it was stated—
  "Whereas by the Great Seal (Offices) Act, 1874, all duties and powers required to be performed by or vested in the purse-bearer to the Lord Chancellor (including the duties of chaff wax, sealer, and deputy sealer) are required to he performed by and Tested in the Gentleman of the Chamber attending the Great Seal and it is expedient to amend the said enactment: Be it therefore enacted as follows:—
  The said duties and powers, so far as they relate to passing documents under the Great Seal, shall, as the Lord Chancellor from time to time by order directs, be performed by and vested in the Gentleman of the Chamber attending the Great Seal, or in the officer performing the duties of Messenger to the Great Seal."
  That, so far as he could see, made no particular difference in the state of things that now existed; only the next paragraph, which was in red ink, enabled this Gentleman of the Chamber to receive an additional salary for doing the duties he had already to perform. A few years ago, they had endeavoured to get rid of the expenditure upon some of these useless offices. Amongst the offices which had disappeared, he was happy to say was that of a lady, who was called "the embroideress," and who enjoyed a considerable salary. The Bill spoke of a gentleman called the "chaff wax, the sealer, and the deputy sealer." But he had already been appointed, and received a salary of £400 a-year, with an additional £100 for discharging the duties of purse-bearer. But, by the clause in red ink, the Lord Chancellor was to be allowed to give him such additional salary or remuneration as he pleased. Thus the public were to be called upon to pay an additional salary to the officer performing the duty of messenger to the Great Seal, who had already £400 a-year, and an additional £100 for discharging the duties of chaff wax and messenger to the Great Seal. Thus a provision was made for increasing such sums, and the Secretary to the Treasury was responsible for a Bill accumulating salaries upon the chaff wax, sealer, and deputy sealer, and officers, whom the public knew nothing at all about. It seemed to him that it
  790
  was nothing more than a job. Everyone, who knew anything about the matter, know the persons who received these salaries were those who had held confidential posts in the household of the Lord Chancellor at former periods; and the object of the Bill was to enable the Lord Chancellor to give them such sums as might appear right to him. He should certainly oppose this Bill, until he knew something more about it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)said, that his hon. and learned Friend seemed to think that this Bill was intended to increase the Expenditure of the country; that was not the case, for one great object of the Bill was to abolish an office that had hitherto been occupied at considerable expenditure. A short time ago, there was an officer who was called "Clerk to the Attorney and Solicitor Generals. All patents, upon passing under the Great Seal, were prepared by the Clerk to the Attorney and Solicitor Generals, and for doing this he was paid by fees. The duties which that officer was called upon to perform were not very onerous, and by no means complicated; but these warrants for the passing of letters patent being very much alike, their preparation did not involve any great amount of trouble—the trouble, if trouble there was, devolving upon the Attorney and Solicitor Generals. This officer was in existence at the time his hon. and learned Friend occupied the post of Law Officer, although he did not seem to be acquainted with him, possibly because he was so occupied in the Office he filled that he had not become thoroughly acquainted with all under him. The occupier of that office had recently died; and it had been thought right to abolish the office altogether, with the consent of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, and to confer the duties of the office upon the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, who, according to this Bill, was not to get any additional remuneration for performing those duties. In other respects, the duties of the office would be performed as hitherto; and if any warrant for the passing of letters patent was required to be prepared, it would be sent to the Law Officers of the Crown to be settled by them. With reference to the other officer to which his hon. and learned Friend had directed attention—the office of purse-bearer,

  791
  including the duties of the chaff wax, sealer, and deputy sealer,—there was, in fact, no chaff wax, sealer, or deputy sealer. The duties of the office were to be transferred to officers to be nominated by the Lord Chancellor, in accordance with the Great Seal (Offices) Act, 1874; and, in order to carry out the provisions of that Act, this clause had been inserted in the Bill, by which all the duties and powers to be performed and vested in the purse-bearer to the Lord Chancellor, including the duties of the chaff wax, sealer, and deputy sealer, were to be performed by the Gentleman of the Chamber attending the Great Seal, or upon the officer performing the duties of messenger to the Great Seal. The object of that was to diminish the expense of these offices. The officers mentioned, as would be seen by referring to the Great Seal Act of 1874, had already certain duties to perform; and he would find that that Act provided that the additional duties in question were to be performed by gentlemen nominated by the Lord Chancellor. They were to be paid out of the money provided by Parliament, and the officers so performing the duties were to receive such additional salary as the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, should see fit and proper to allow. It was only right, when extra offices were thrown upon an officer, who had at present a great many duties to perform, that some slight increase to his salary should be made. For that reason, it had been thought right to insert the present provision in the Bill, enabling the slight increase to be made, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor to the Treasury, and the Treasury would then grant it. The hon. and learned Gentleman might be quite sure that no additional salary would be allowed by the Treasury, unless it were absolutely necessary.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

INDIAN MARINE BILL— [BILL 182.]
(Mr. Edward Stanhope, Mr. John G. Talbot.)
INDIAN MARINE BILL— [BILL 182.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Edward Stanhope.)
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, that no explanation had been given the House with regard to this Bill. So far as he could see, the Bill proposed to give the Governor General powers similar to those in the Mutiny Act, and for a certain branch of the Service, called the Indian Marine Service, including a great many persons, some of whom might be considered ordinary labourers. Power was given to inflict exemplary and speedy punishments, and some of the punishments were very heavy, and some were of a very light character. The Bill gave the Governor General power to authorize these laws to be put in force before receiving instructions from England; but they were to be repealed, if disallowed. With the exception of death, nearly all the punishments might be inflicted upon a British subject born in England. The Bill also gave power, under these laws, to punish by death Natives of India. Powers to inflict penal servitude upon British subjects, with the sanction of the Government at home, were also given. Therefore, he thought that this Bill was one of the most serious character, and that it should not be read a second time at that hour. He should move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." (Mr. Whitwell.)
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that the Bill was of a very simple character indeed. It contained powers exactly similar to those which had been in force a great many years, by which the Government of India was empowered to make regulations with regard to persons serving in the Marine Service. The Indian Navy was abolished; but it had been subsequently found, after very careful inquiry, that it would be necessary for India to have under its own control a few vessels for local purposes. For that reason, the Government of India had authorized a small Marine Service; but they had no power, as the matter stood, to enforce any discipline in the Service. For that reason, they proposed to give to the Governor General, by this Bill, power to regulate the Service. There was nothing peculiar in the Bill, and any regulations made under it were not to be enforced if the Secretary of State disallowed them. That was all it was necessary to say

  793
  upon the subject; the hon. Gentleman, therefore, would see that the Bill was of a simple character.
  MR. BARINGinquired whether the powers were given to the Governor General, or to the Governor General in Council, to make regulations under the Act?
  MR. E STANHOPEobserved, that the phrase used of the Governor General in Council was the one always made use of in Acts of Parliament.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas surprised that this Bill should be taken so late at night. It was not the annual Mutiny Bill for India—that had been repealed. This was a new Bill, and he did not think that it should be taken at that time.
  MR. ONSLOWthought that some further information should be furnished by the Under Secretary of State for India with regard to the state of this Marine. The Indian Marine was abolished some years ago, on the understanding that Her Majesty's Navy should undertake all its then duties, and the Indian Government agreed to pay about £70,000 a-year towards the expenses of the Navy. Now, it seemed that the Indian Marine was to be established on its old footing; and it appeared that many of the duties which ought, in his opinion, to be performed by Her Majesty's Navy were to be thrown upon the Indian Marine. He thought that they should be told the reason for this expenditure, and the necessity for an Indian Marine co-existent with Her Majesty's Navy in Indian waters. If this Bill were to be extended to a great extent, he thought it would be in the interests of the Indian Exchequer that it should be opposed.
  MR. DILLWYNthought that such a Bill as this should be taken in a full House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconsented to the adjournment of the debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  TERMS OF REMOVAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. MONTGOMERIE, Bill to provide for uniform Terms of Removal from lands and houses in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONTGOMERIE, Sir WILLIAM CUNINGHAME, Mr. MACKINTOSH, and Sir WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 189.]

  COSTS TAXATION (HOUSE OF COMMONS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RAIKES, Bill to amend "The House of Commons Costs Taxation Act, 1847," ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES and Mr. MOWBRAY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.]
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Public Bills—Second Reading—Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867, Amendment* (78).
Committee—Report—Local Government Provisional Orders (Ashton-under-Lyne, &c.)* (79).

TREATY OF BERLIN—THE GREEK FRONTIER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: I rise to ask the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, Whether the telegram which appeared in The Daily News on Saturday last, purporting to give the terms of M. Waddington's Circular with regard to the negotiations on the subject of the Greek Frontier, is correct? If the text as thus printed in extenso is correct, I hope the noble Marquess will have no objection to lay it on the Table of the House. The noble Marquess may object, that during the progress of negotiations on a question of this importance, it is undesirable to lay any Papers on the Table. I admit the force of that objection, but, at the same time, it seems to me that if the Circular can be given to the public, the House, too, is entitled to have it before it in an official and authentic form. No doubt, this question of the Greek Frontier is exciting considerable and increasing interest in this country and in Europe. There is some apprehension, that while Her Majesty's Government have been recommending the exercise of patience and forbearance to the Greeks, they are themselves somewhat lukewarm in regard to negotiations based on the 24th Article of the Treaty of Berlin; and I venture to say, without going any further, it would be of importance if the position of England in regard to the matter were clearly understood. If the noble Marquess could lay this and other Papers on the Table, giving information as to the course these negotiations are taking, he would, I think, satisfy a not unnatural desire for information, and allay no inconsiderable anxiety.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If I were to go so far as to criticize the course taken by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley), what I should object to would be asking whether a document, not produced, was or was not accurately represented in some newspaper. As there is no secret in the present case, I may venture to indicate generally that the Circular, as published, is correct. But if the document was a document that could not be produced, and was inaccurately represented in a newspaper, a Minister could not say that it was accurately represented. If he said it was inaccurately represented, and it turned out that the inaccuracy, in the view of the questioner, was not a matter of great importance, the Minister would be accused of practising concealment. Therefore, I should venture to say that, if a Paper cannot be produced in its entirety, it is better not to answer any Question about it. In the present case that point does not arise, although, undoubtedly, the rule with regard to pending negotiations would justify us in withholding it. I propose to lay shortly on the Table Papers which will give the required information.

AFGHANISTAN—THE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, it may be interesting to your Lordships to know that I have received intelligence to the effect that the bases of peace with the Ameer of Afghanistan have been agreed upon.
TREATY OF BERLIN, ARTICLE 22—OCCUPATION OF BULGARIA AND EASTERN ROUMELIA.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD CAMPBELL, in rising to call attention to Article 22 of the Treaty of Berlin, as it relates to the period during which the occupation of Bulgaria and East Roumelia was sanctioned; and to move for the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and other Powers on the subject, said; My Lords, in the absence of my noble Friend whose Question stood first (Lord Stanley of Alderley), I am called on to address you. As it may be thought that comments on the 22nd Article in the Treaty of Berlin might have been offered to the House
  656
  on the 16th of May, I will at once encounter that objection to the Notice. No doubt, the topic was alluded to by those who mixed in the debate, and anyone who rose might feel at liberty to mention it. But in so vast an issue as the merit or demerit of the Government in all their European and Asiatic policy, to fix upon it the attention of the House, would scarcely have been possible. But even if it was possible, according to the view which guides me, the object of the Notice would not have been compassed. My Lords, ever since the Treaty of Berlin, there has been no greater matter of solicitude, to those who reason justly on the Eastern Question, than the existence of a Russian Army beyond the Pruth, the Danube, and the Balkans. It seems to me a version of the Treaty has been sanctioned which, if it goes unchallenged, must tend to prolong the occupation altogether. But it can only be challenged with effect by Notice to call attention to the subject. Whether or not a given statement in the midst of a discussion like that of Friday last goes beyond the House is utterly precarious. But a Notice, however briefly or inadequately handled, must place it upon record, that the interpretation which keeps Russian troops in the Dominion of the Sultan longer than otherwise they would be, is disputed. Besides, other noble Lords may impart to the Notice more effect than I can give it. Before questioning the new interpretation of Article 22, let me mention with what aim it seems to me worth while to question it at present. Of course, the old interpretation cannot be recovered when it has once been given up. No human force, no stretch of virtue at St. Petersburg, or ingenuity in Downing Street, can now deliver East Roumelia and Bulgaria by the 3rd of May. The question now is, whether by August there will be the final exodus over the Pruth for which the Treaty has provided. But the House will readily admit that one encroachment on the Treaty, unless it is an object of remark, remonstrance, criticism, or protest in the Assemblies of the Signatory Powers, is nearly sure to generate another. I now wish to offer a few words on the interpretation of the Article. By learned men it might, no doubt, be debated both ways at such a length as would alarm the Court of Chancery, and keep its judgment in suspense for a considerable

  657
  period. But my mode of treating it will be a short, even if it is not a convincing, one. Unless analogy is cast aside, the occupation of a territory can only cease when the territory has been quitted, as the occupation of a house can only cease when the occupier leaves it. The occupation of the house would not have ceased, because after the term the occupier began, in one week to pack his library, in a second to move his horses, in a third to get his family in order for departure. Neither the occupation of a house, nor the occupation of a territory, has ceased until the house or territory has thoroughly reverted to the owner. But it is said that anything may be established by analogy. Let me proceed, therefore, to the despatch of the noble Marquess to Consul Pal-grave on the 30th of September. According to the despatch, the new règime in Bulgaria must begin as soon as the nine months are over, because "the provisional Administration is to cease" exactly at that moment. It is clear, therefore, that on the 30th of September, the noble Marquess did not mean a Russian Force after the nine months to linger in that country. The provisional Administration could not cease until the Russian troops had vanished. The same remark applies to East Roumelia; but I do not dwell upon it. It is better to go on with the expressions of the Article. After the nine mouths in East Roumelia and Bulgaria, the closing paragraph allows three months for traversing Roumania. How could the Congress have laid down that three months might be employed in traversing Roumania, unless it held that at the beginning of the three months the other countries would be liberated? If the Russian Armies may be marching within the Ottoman and the Bulgarian Dominions after the nine months, they cannot be during the three months in Moldavia and Wallachia. According to the new interpretation, the Russian Force, as an united whole, should be at once on both sides of the Danube, a feat without a precedent in history. No doubt, in vague terms, the Forces of the Czar have been sometimes referred to as colossal. But to execute the task the new interpretation would assign to them, each individual soldier must stride—over a large and rapid flood—as a colossus. My Lords, the same view may be supported
  658
  by referring to the Protocols of Berlin. It is there distinctly seen that Count Schouvaloff demanded nine months, in order in that time to evacuate Roumelia and Bulgaria; three months, in order in that time to evacuate the territory which lies beyond the Danube. The definitive Treaty between Russia and the Porte is based on the same principle. But it is unnecessary to refer to it, because there is a quicker mode of reaching a conclusion. No one will deny that the Article may be interpreted against the Russian claim, although he thinks it may be construed also to support it. It was interpreted against the Russian claim by the noble Duke who addressed the House on Friday; by the noble Earl the Lord Warden, who, this day fortnight, first elicited the present doctrine from the Government; by all the journalists of Europe until the noble Marquess spoke on that occasion; by all the most habitual reasoners on Eastern topics, against the noble Marquess since his doctrine was promulgated, which they have certainly repelled, whether or not they have disposed of it. The utmost which the new interpreters can urge is, that the stipulation is ambiguous. Let mo then grant its ambiguity. Here public law steps in at once to rescue us from difficulty. It is the maxim of public law, as well known to Sir Robert Phillimore as Vattel, that where a passage in the Treaty is ambiguous, it is to be construed against the Power which had the most decisive voice in the formation of the Articles; on this ground—that the strongest Power has brought about the ambiguity it ought to have prevented. The mode in which Vattel reasons, in a special chapter on Treaties of Peace, is almost prophetic of the circumstances which surround us. Such Treaties are nearly certain, he considers, to be fraught with ambiguity. But the Power by which a given stipulation is imposed, and not the Power on which it is imposed, must suffer loss from the obscurity. The principle is backed by a tenet of Roman law that damage falls upon the party "Cujus in postestate fuit rem apertius conscribere." Now it is seen clearly, by the Protocols, that the occupation was nothing but a sacrifice to a victorious invader. Neither the Sublime Porte, nor any other Power, aimed at it. It was open to Russia to intimate, in language not to be mis-

  659
  taken, that until the end of nine months her Armies would not begin a movement of withdrawal. If the new interpretation is correct, the other Powers would have sanctioned it. If they would not have sanctioned it, the new interpretation is erroneous. As this ground is by far the most conclusive, it would not be judicious to add another to it. Ambiguity is not denied, and ambiguity suffices to overthrow the Russian version. My Lords, it does not follow that the Government are an object of severe reproach for an untenable interpretation of the 22nd Article. They may have had to listen during many weeks to every kind of sophistry by which it can be palliated. The Members of an Opposition are not similarly circumstanced. I take no credit to myself for still adhering to the true interpretation. Let me refer a moment to the Papers which I move for. They go to ascertain whether or not the other Signatory Powers at once departed from the ground originally contemplated. Now it is affirmed, with as much gravity as anything we have to trace to unofficial correspondence, that Austria wholly differed from the last conclusion of the Government. It is affirmed by sources which we generally credit, that Count Andrassy has protested against the legal status of the Russian Force after the 3rd of May, except between the Danube and the Pruth, where they may march or rest until the 3rd of August. But we are utterly devoid of all official knowledge as to the line of Austria or any Signatory Power. Should the day ever come when the transactions of the Eastern Question are reviewed, not only to entertain the House, or dazzle its frequenters, or to affect opinion out-of-doors, but to invoke the judgment of your Lordships, it is requisite to know whether, in so grave a measure as that of allowing Russia to begin a movement at the time she ought to have completed it, Great Britain has led or followed other Powers, has been in unison with Austria, or opposed and overruled her. There is nothing, therefore, useless or irrelevant in the correspondence I suggest; nor except in the case that no despatches were exchanged, do I imagine that the Government, or Foreign Office, or the noble Marquees who presides in that Department, will be reluctant to produce them. My Lords, although I have done it already to
  660
  some extent, it may be prudent to insist again that the object of the Notice is not to dress up a case against Her Majesty's Government, but to contribute, by means of the House and those who may address it, to the deliverance from Russian arms of the important region they are grasping. Some men entitled to respect, both in the House and out of it, are inclined to view that deliverance as easily attainable, indeed, as virtually accomplished. It seems to me they utterly deceive themselves; and neither reflect with care upon the slender means which exist for the attainment of their purpose, nor the urgent motives which may lead the authorities of Russia to defeat it. As to the means, what are they? The German Empire has repeatedly declared its inability, which may be its reluctance, to exert military power at so great a distance. Austria, as it was easy to learn during the autumn at Vienna, has been exhausted by her unexpected struggles in Herzegovina and Bosnia to a degree which greatly lessens her capacity for effort on the Danube. France and Italy, however good their dispositions, however eminent their Leaders, are no more available as restraints upon aggression in the East than San Marino and Monaco. Great Britain—in spite of the announcement we have heard to-night—has still one anxious war to occupy her Forces. But let us turn to Russian motives. By remaining a considerable period between the Danube and the Pruth, or even where she is at present, Russia may impose upon Bulgaria the type most favourable to her objects; ensure the general supremacy of those who represent her at Constantinople; control the Principalities which have been flung into the air without a Suzerain to shelter them, without a Treaty rendering it penal to attack them, and gratify the military interest by which, as yet, her foreign policy is uniformly regulated. It is true that internal difficulties tend to the recall of Armies to the centre. The malevolent assailant of the Czar may, unintentionally, be the liberator of the Balkans. But we know too little to depend on such an agency as likely to outbalance the habitual and traditionary influences we are perfectly acquainted with. Three documents which have been recently presented—the despatch of the noble Marquess on the 26th of January, the lan-

  661
  guage held by Prince Dondoukoff to Lord Donoughmore, the Report of Surgeon Buckle on the condition of the territory between Adrianople and Philippopolis—reveal objects so wholly inconsistent with the Treaty of Berlin, that nothing but a longer occupation of European Turkey can effect them. At least, prudent men will look back and ask how far their past anticipations have been realized in any given sphere, before depending on a new one. At every stage of this long transaction, the kind of confidence which now prevails has been rebuked and disappointed. When the three Powers declared their intention to negotiate with Servia and Roumania, it was hoped that there was very little in it; that it was nothing but a technical arrangement; that the Eastern Question was not going to be resuscitated. Who would not blush, after the event, at having shared in such fatuity? It was then hoped that the Herzegovinian Insurrection would burn out in its own crater. It was next hoped that the Conference of 1876 would lead to the adjustment of the new commotions which alarmed us. As soon as it collapsed, the impression was that by some other agencies an European war might be prevented. War having begun, the hope was that Constantinople would not be endangered by it. After the Treaty of Berlin, it was hoped that by the 3rd of May there would, not be a Russian soldier in Bulgaria. And now, at the end of these disheartening illusions, it is the fashion to proclaim belief in the complete evacuation by the 3rd of August, as if every previous vision had been systematically realized by the course of history—which disperses and exposes it. But I will not pursue that topic beyond the point which seemed desirable to vindicate the Notice, and move for the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and other Powers, on the 22nd Article of the Treaty of Berlin.
  Moved, "That the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and other Powers on Article 22 of the Treaty of Berlin be laid upon the Table."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not disposed to contend that the Article of the Treaty which formed the subject of the noble Lord (Lord Campbell's) speech is wholly free
  662
  from ambiguity. It is our experience in this, and the other House of Parliament, that when there are several clauses in a Bill over which a long battle is fought in Committee, and when that Bill becomes an act of Parliament, it is often found by the Judges that a more technical accuracy in its enactments would have been desirable. Perhaps, something of that kind has occurred in this instance, as the Article in question was the subject of a great deal of discussion in the Congress of Berlin, and, subsequently, on the part of the Commission; but I think the simile the noble Lord used indicates a fallacy lurking in his mind in respect of this matter. He said that a man who was to occupy a house for a certain time was bound to be out of it by the end of the term of occupation; and that, in like manner, as Russia was to occupy those Provinces only for a certain time, she was bound to have evacuated them by that time. There is, however, this difference between the two cases. A man, with all his furniture, can get out of a house in one day; but an Army cannot get out of two Provinces quite so easily, and that is the gist of the controversy. We think that evacuation and occupation are two totally different things. An Army which is evacuating cannot be occupying. Occupation is a technical military term. When an occupation is over, undoubtedly the Army is bound to evacuate with as much expedition as possible. But this matter has been already before this House, and I think before the other House of Parliament, and, without wishing to derogate from its importance, I am not sure that I attach to the difference of time as between the two interpretations, the consequence which appears to be attributed to it by the noble Lord. With respect to the production of Correspondence, I am afraid there is considerable difficulty, and that for the reason that there is none. Speaking from memory, I have never had any written communication on this subject with the Russian Ambassador here, or Her Majesty's Ambassador at St Petersburg. The only Correspondence that I remember on the subject was this—some time in the spring, between the end of February and the beginning of March, Sir Henry Elliot asked me by telegraph what my view on this point was, and I then stated to him what I have stated in your Lord-

  663
  ships' House. I shall look for the telegrams, and I shall lay them on the Table if I think they can be produced. I suppose the noble Lord will not think it necessary to press his Motion for Papers, when I state that there are only those telegraphic messages.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid, it was curious that there had been no Correspondence on the solution of a doubt on so important a subject, and it was unfortunate that so important an Article had been drawn in a manner which left a doubt as to its proper interpretation. When the doubt arose, was the solution of it left to Russia? The prolongation of occupation would be of no great importance were it not for the nature of the occupation itself. It was of something more than a military character. It had a political character also, and every hour that it was continued it carried with it a source of provocation and danger. No sooner was Prince Batten-berg elected Prince of Bulgaria, than he repaired to Livadia, and virtually accepted the Emperor of Russia as his Suzerain. From that, it might be concluded that the policy of Bulgaria would be that of Russia. The delay in the evacuation was to be regretted; but it was to be hoped that if there had been ambiguity in the past, there would be none in the future.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I agree with my noble Friends who hold that the evacuation of these Provinces is a matter of the last importance. Neither am I surprised at the construction which my noble Friend (Lord Campbell) put on Article 22, because I put the same construction on it myself; but I am not one of those who think that Her Majesty's Government ought to have been more strict. If they thought there was a danger of disorder and bloodshed if the evacuation were carried out suddenly—and I think, from published Papers which we have seen, there was such a danger—then it seems to me that they are not to blame. On the contrary, I think they ought to be commended for having adopted a more liberal construction of the terms relating to the evacuation by the Russians, as well as of the clause respecting an occupation of the Balkan fortresses by the Turks. I cannot, therefore, agree in the views of the two noble Lords as to the action of the Government in this matter.
  LORD CAMPBELLunderstood, with the greatest satisfaction, the noble Marquess to recognize the ambiguity from which everything followed. He could not accede to the opinion of the noble Marquess, that to evacuate the territory between the Balkans and the Danube by the 3rd of May was practically difficult in the manner he contended. Although it was a military point, and he (Lord Campbell) spoke before some military critics, he would hazard the remark that had the 50,000 men been aligned in the vicinity of the Danube at the beginning of the month, they would have effected the passage of that river by their pontoon bridges, not having any enemy in front of them, with considerable case in four-and-twenty hours. The view of the noble Marquess on this point appeared to him unjust to their commanders. Of course, as the noble Marquess had no despatches to produce, he would not press the Motion. Before sitting down, he must acknowledge the powerful support which his noble Friend who sat upon his right (Lord Houghton)—without which he could not have submitted it with so much advantage to the House—had given to his interpretation of the Treaty.
  Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

LANDED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in moving for certain Returns, said, that some few years ago he moved for a Return of the number of sales which took place under what are popularly called the Bright Clauses of the Irish Land Act, and he now wished to have the Return carried down to the present day, if their Lordships had no objection to make the proposal. In moving for the Return, he would only say that he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give the subject the most serious attention. He remembered very well when the Cabinet of Mr. Gladstone brought forward the Irish Land Act, they were in some trepidation as to the way in which the Bright Clauses would be received in their Lordship's House, because those clauses proposed, that the State should lend money to persons to buy land with, and he was pleased to hear the noble Mar-

  665
  quess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) on that occasion, state very strongly that it was a matter of public policy to make as many landowners in Ireland as possible. He quite agreed with his noble Friend; but he was afraid that those clauses had not worked so well in increasing the number of landowners as had been anticipated. It was said that this was owing to the expense of making purchases under those clauses. At all events, the Irish Church Commissioners had done more in the same direction. No fewer than 5,000 tenants had become landowners by means of the facilities afforded by those Commissioners. He thought it of great importance that the Government should devise a system by which, on a large scale, the Irish tenants might become owners of land by purchase, because he observed that all the Land Bills being introduced from other quarters were for enabling tenants to acquire land without going through the formality of paving for it.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: As reference has been made to Mr. Bright's Clauses having become inoperative on account of the expense, I may be excused if I remind the House that when the Act was being passed, I pointed out that if precautions were not taken, those clauses would be inoperative, because the practice of one public Department would probably be like that of another; and the office of Woods and Forests, in a case I know of, had charged 7s. worth of land, with £2 odd shillings costs of conveyance, and such costs would prevent any tenants from purchasing under these clauses. I then moved an Amendment, with a view to reducing the expenses; but my noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) opposed it, and said that—
  "Rules would be framed by the Privy Council in Ireland, and they would, no doubt, take care to provide for this."—[3 Hansard, ccii. 1454.]
  As a matter of curiosity, I should like to know whether my noble Friend ever took any steps in this sense, or whether, as was probable, he never thought any more about it, after giving this answer?
  Motion agreed to.
  I. Return (in continuation of No. 238, 1876,) showing (1) in Provinces, and (2) in Counties, the Landed Estates held either in fee, fee farm, for lives renewable for ever, or for terms of years of which sixty shall have been unexpired,
  666
  sold in one or more lots in the Landed Estates Court for each of the years ending respectively 31st December 1876, 1877, and 1878, giving the following particulars in each of the foregoing periods:

  (3) The name of the estate;

  (4) The cost of sale;

  (5) The tenure of each lot;

  (6) The number of each lot;

  (7) The acreage (statute measure) of each lot;

  (8) The profit rent;

  (9) The Poor Law valuation of each lot as set out in the rental filed in the Landed Estates Court;

  (10) The amount of purchase money;

  (11) The number of years purchase;

  II. Return, in Provinces and Counties, of Estates sold during the years 1876, 1877, and 1878 in one or more lots in the Landed Estates Court under Part III. of the Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, in which charging orders have been made in favour of the Board of Works, giving in each case the same particulars as in Return No. I.:
  Ordered to be laid before the House.—(The Duke of Argyll.)

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU WAR—THE RE-INFORCEMENTS—CONDITION OF THE REGIMENTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRURO, in rising to call attention to a Return showing the condition as regarded efficiency and strength of the regiments of Infantry sent from this country to South Africa in February last, said, the subject which he had to bring before their Lordships was one of Imperial interest. It was no less than this—had the country, under the newly-adopted military system, an Army adequate to its wants and available for all emergencies? If the system had failed they were bound to consider the determined purpose of the nation to be provided with a military Force adequate in all respects to its requirements. The Return to which he desired to call attention, pointed out in a decisive and glaring manner the defects of our present military organization, and it showed with directness and clearness the source from which those defects arose. In the month of February last, Lord Chelmsford applied to Her Majesty's Government for re-inforcements. Lord Chelmsford was a distinguished officer, and had held military appointments to enable him to know what the strength of regiments was, and how strongly each regiment should be constituted. When his Lordship, therefore, applied to be re-inforced

  667
  by five regiments, he knew that his reinforcements would amount to no less than 5,000 men, if the regiments were properly constituted. It was, first of all, to the strength of these regiments, not less than the troops themselves which constituted them, to which he earnestly invited attention. These re-inforcements, instead of numbering 5,000 men, as a matter of fact, numbered only 4,435, of whom 905 had not served for the full period of 12 months. As to the material of which those troops were composed, more than one in three, or 1,585 in all, were under 21 years of age. Of those 1,585, no fewer than 500 were under 20 years, 251 were under 19 years, and 37 were under 18 years. Now, that was the condition of the Force sent out to Lord Chelmsford, and he (Lord Truro) ventured to remark that, however unfortunate it was that the re-inforcements should be constituted of men so young and unformed, yet there was one thing more unfortunate still, and that was that the non-commissioned officers were inexperienced. Of those attached to the Force of which he had spoken, 45 were under the age of 24, 100 had not reached the age of 22, 54 were not 21 years of age, and 12 were under the age of 20. Their Lordships would be able to form some opinion of the character of the Force which the necessities of this country had compelled the Government to send out in view of the contention frequently urged, that the strength of the British Army depended mainly upon the experience, tact, and judgment of its non-commissioned officers. In the case he had mentioned, more than a third of the rank-and-file were under 21 years of ago, and there was not a non-commissioned officer over 24 years of age. In making these remarks, he wished simply to call attention to a system which had not worked well up to the present, and had only been a short time in operation, but in regard to the future working of which much interest must necessarily be felt. The present system provided that a man should serve 12 years—six with the Colours, and six with the Reserves. But the service with the Colours was often only a period of three years, at the end of which the men had the option of going into the Reserve. He understood this system of allowing men to go after three or four years' service had been found undesirable, and he hoped that in future
  668
  men would not be allowed to retire so speedily. It was not in the interest of the public that the Crown should pay a large amount of money for the services of what was really little better than raw recruits. Perhaps it was not, under the circumstances, to be regretted that recent wars had afforded to the Government and the country an opportunity of judging the merits and defects of this newly-instituted and only partially-tried system. When it was considered that in almost every handicraft an apprentice spoilt his master's materials for one or two years, worked for other two years without wages, and completed his apprenticeship with a nominal payment, it was somewhat curious to find that what might be called military apprentices in the National Service were dealt with on an opposite principle, and received payment from the moment their apprenticeship commenced. A noble Earl (the Earl of Longford), whom he regretted not to see in his place, had formulated his views, and, on this branch of the subject, the noble Earl held that, as soon as enlisted, recruits ought to be relegated to depôts for instruction, and not sent to their regiments until they were fit for something like substantial service, inducements being offered to them in the meantime to fit themselves as soon as possible for service with the Colours. In connection with the contention that it was too early to find fault with a military system so recent as that of Viscount Cardwell's, he might say that, in his opinion, there was great credit due to the noble Viscount for the nerve and determination he showed in carrying out the will of the people to possess a cheap, efficient, and popular Army in face of a deeply-rooted system of ancient reverences—he would not call them prejudices—and a lively Party opposition. To a great extent, the noble Viscount succeeded in the task imposed upon him, a task which included not only the difficulty he had suggested, but the further ones of producing an Army capable of expansion and contraction, and of making happy and contented those officers who were subjected to enforced retirement. But there were still greater difficulties yet to be dealt with. It was a most important fact that, to make up the reinforcements for abroad, 1,400 were taken from home regiments; that in some cases such regiments were reduced

  669
  to as low a strength as 200 men; and that in a regiment, in one of the most important fortresses in the Kingdom, there were not more than six men available for garrison duty. It had been said in some quarters that the country was not willing to provide further national resources; but, he believed he expressed the opinions of the highest officials, when he said that an augmentation of the British Army was absolutely necessary in order to support the interests of the country, protect its commerce, and supply re-inforcements in case of wars such as those in which we were now engaged, and furnish drafts for regiments serving in India and our Dependencies abroad. Those official authorities also held that, in addition to re-inforcing the Army, it was necessary to make some modifications in the existing system of military organizations and management.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEthought that the policy of the late Secretary of State for War (Viscount Cardwell), and the effects of the re-organization of the Army instituted during his tenure of office, were questions which it would be inconvenient for their Lordships to enter into on that occasion, more especially as it was rumoured that Her Majesty's Government intended to appoint a Commission or a Committee to investigate the whole subject. Confining his remarks to the condition of the regiments sent out as re-inforcements to Lord Chelmsford, he desired to say that the figures quoted by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Truro) showed that those regiments were in a lamentable state as regarded efficiency. One regiment—the 21st Fusiliers—with which he was familiar, having a son in it—when ordered to the Cape, was actually obliged to send back to the depôt as many as 353 boys who were utterly unfit for active service. There were only 314 men in that regiment, out of a strength of about 900, who had reached the age of 24, the remainder being immature youths. Only 194 of the men had completed their six years' service. This was a very unfortunate and unsatisfactory state of things. The other regiments which were sent to the Cape would be found, if the Returns were examined, to be in very much the same condition. He wished, however, to say, in reference to the regiment which he had named, that he had received letters
  670
  which showed that the boys who were in it had stood the test of long marches to the front in bad weather very well. But he doubted whether such troops could bear the strain of a prolonged campaign. The most unsatisfactory part of the whole Returns related to the noncommissioned officers. The efficiency of an Army depended upon the efficiency of the non-commissioned officers. The chief flaw in the short-service system was the want of non-commissioned officers. He desired to draw the attention of his noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War (Viscount Bury) to a recommendation which had been made by a Committee of which the present Secretary of State for War (Colonel Stanley) was Chairman. None of those recommendations had been carried out, although the present Minister of War was Chairman. That recommendation was that regiments with both of their battalions abroad should receive assistance in recruiting from brigade depôts, by the establishment of a system of volunteering, which they deprecated generally, observing that under certain circumstances a portion of the Reserves should be called out. And the Committee said—
  "We submit that there may he circumstances of emergency not of sufficient importance to justify the general embodiment of the Militia, and yet of sufficient gravity to necessitate an immediate, though temporary, increase of trained men. In such an event, which can happen extremely seldom, we think a certain proportion of Reserve men should be recalled to the Colours."
  He was of opinion that what had occurred in Africa a short time ago was certainly such an emergency as the Committee had in view. In such an emergency, the Government should have the power of calling out a certain portion of our Reserve men, and he wished to know why this recommendation had not been resorted to. Short service might be too dearly purchased, and he hoped that the questions of short service and the general re-organization of the Army would be investigated in a thoroughly impartial manner. The question should not be referred to those who had inaugurated the present system, but to those who would bring independent opinion to bear on the subject.
  VISCOUNT BURYthought the House must have felt that both the noble Lords who had addressed it had done so

  671
  with a great sense of responsibility, and with a very praiseworthy absence of anything like exaggeration, which, on the topic before their Lordships, would be extremely undesirable from many points of view. Exaggeration might tend to cause an undue panic and an unreasoning fear out-of-doors, and might have a very bad effect in the Army itself. He was not there, representing the War Office, as he did, to speak with "bated breath and whispering humbleness" upon the points before their Lordships. He acknowledged, and the Department acknowledged, that there were many and great faults in the system which had been inaugurated; but it was desirable that they should not attach too much importance to those faults, or exaggerate their nature. They should look at the true state of things and see if there were not within their reach an easy remedy. Of course, if Her Majesty's Government were responsible for the state of things which had arisen—if to the policy of Her Majesty's Government alone was to be referred the fact that the regiments which had gone out to Zululand were below such a standard of age as was desirable, and that they had been brought up to their full strength in a manner which might be objected to from a military point of view—if Her Majesty's Government were responsible for all that, they might be ashamed of presenting themselves before the House, and of inviting—as his noble Friend who sat behind him (Viscount Hardinge) had just done—a free, impartial, and full discussion upon this great subject. But, in the first place, the system upon which the British Army was now built up was, as his noble Friend opposite very well expressed it, a new system, and a system which was upon its trial. It was also a system for which no one Government could be held responsible. It was true that a Committee, presided over by his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for War (Colonel Stanley), made certain recommendations; but those recommendations were only in continuation of others made by the noble Viscount on the opposite Benches (Viscount Cardwell). He believed, too, that the noble Viscount made his recommendations only after consulting all the military experience at his command. Feeling that a great change was necessary
  672
  in the constitution of the Army, the subject having been previously debated for years, the noble Viscount set on foot a system which he believed was most likely to prove an ample and proper reform of our Army system; and the illustrious Duke at the head of the Army (the Duke of Cambridge) gave him the advice which, in his opinion, should be followed under the conditions which had been submitted to him. Therefore, one Government after another, one Committee after another, were concerned in these recommendations, which were assented to by the illustrious Duke. No one Government was responsible for what had taken place. The question was discussed for several years when he (Viscount Bury) held a seat in the House of Commons, and every step which had been taken since had been taken for the purpose of giving effect to the determination which was arrived at by the House and the country at large. Therefore, although he did not deny that there were grave defects in our military system, he could say, without Party bias, for it was not a Party question at all, that it was a matter in which they ought to put their heads together with a view to ascertain whether a remedy was not at hand, and how best it could be applied. There was another reason why they should be very chary in setting aside the recommendations made in 1871, and that was that in carrying out those recommendations in reference to the brigade depôt system, so large a sum of money had been expended, that it would be cruel and unjust to the country to throw it to one side. They had spent up to the present time £2,743,579 on the establishment of brigade depôts throughout the country. It might be that their organization was not perfect; but Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that that fact would best be met, not by throwing all that had been done aside, but by full and deliberate investigation, point by point, of the various items which could be improved, and by endeavouring to devise what the improvement should be. They should also remember that the new system, although it had not been very long in operation, had still acted pretty well. They were nominally in a state of peace—that was, they were not in that state of war which would enable them to call out the Reserves. They

  673
  had, he was going to say, two wars on their hands; but the announcement made by his noble Friend behind him (Viscount Cranbrook) left them, happily, in a position to say that they had only one war on their hands. But until now they had had two, and they could not, by any stretch of imagination, be called little wars, and they had had to fight them with an Army upon a peace footing; and, therefore, the system by which, without any undue exertion, they were enabled to supply the requisite number of men to the two Armies in the field could hardly be said to have broken down, although he admitted that, on an inspection of the various regiments, some fault was to found as to the inexperience of the non-commissioned officers, and the ages of the men. His noble Friend (Lord Truro) had, however, he thought, a little overrated that point. He (Viscount Bury) would take the first regiment on the list, the 2nd Battalion of the 21st Regiment. Of its 888 men, more than half—about 500—were over 21 years of age, and it would be admitted that men over 21 years of age were well able to go through the dangers and difficulties of a campaign. He was not denying that there were a good many youths in the regiments; but this lie said—that it was very important there should not be entertained out-of-doors any exaggerated views of the difficulties which existed; that it should not be thought the men were such mere boys, and so utterly inexperienced, as his noble Friend had rhetorically stated. The system under which the Army was organized certainly had, as he had already stated, faults. They had now 16,609 First Class Army Reserve, 21,976 Second Class Army Reserve, and a Militia Reserve of 20,110; in all a Reserve of 58,695 men. It might be asked—"Why, then, if you are so hard up for men as to be obliged to gather them in here and there, do you not call out your Reserves? "The reason was that they were prohibited from doing so by positive legislative enactment. In the Army Organization Act of 1870, it was provided that unless a grave national emergency was declared by Parliament, or if Parliament were not sitting, by Order in Council, their could not call out the Reserves, or any part of them, or embody the Militia. They were, therefore, prohibited from calling out any one of the 58,000 men
  674
  of which he had spoken; and they were also prevented from accepting the services of any of those men, even if they chose to volunteer. Until a few days ago, they were under the impression that if any of the Reserve men desired to rejoin the Colours, they were at liberty to do so; but from an opinion they obtained from the Law Officers of the Crown it appeared that such was not the case. What, then, was to be done? They fell back upon the general organization of 1872, which was yet wanting in elasticity to make it exactly suited to the exigencies of the country. The system went on the assumption that they should have generally 70 battalions abroad and 70 at home—that the battalion at home and that abroad should be linked together, and that the latter should be kept up to its full strength by drafts from the battalion at home. To these were to be attached what was called a depôt centre, and that had at its back the Militia and Volunteers of the district. Well, that was all very well in theory, and it would have worked well practically, if they had never had more than 70 battalions abroad. But in the first year of the system they had 71 battalions abroad, and they never since had less; while at that moment they had 85 battalions abroad. The consequence was that 15 of the linked battalions were deprived of any regiment at their back from which their full strength could be made up, and that 55 regiments at home had not only to supply their own linked battalions, but 15 other battalions, and the casualties in their own ranks. That was a dislocation of the system inaugurated by his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Cardwell) which probably he never could entirely have foreseen, and which would have been obviated by some means of elasticity had it been foreseen. Not being able, then, to call out the Reserves or embody the Militia, they could only have recourse to enlisting, and enlisting, he would remind his noble Friend, gave them nothing but boys; and that was the state of things in the present exceptional position, with a war in Zululand and a war, up to the present time, in Afghanistan. He did not know whether it would be a bull to say that the position, although it was exceptional, was habitual, for they might be said to be never entirely at peace and never entirely

  675
  at war. Since 1852 they had had the Crimean War, the Persian War, the Indian Mutiny, two New Zealand Wars, the Abyssinian War, the Franco-German War, the Russo-Turkish War, the Ashantee War, the Afghanistan War, and the Zulu War; but on only two occasions were the Militia called out—during the Russian War and the Indian Mutiny. These were all considerable wars; but they did not all amount to great emergencies justifying the calling out of the Reserves. They were the kind of emergencies which should be met by dislocating the whole system, and which threw them back upon volunteering and recruiting. He had frankly acknowledged the main justice of his noble Friend's strictures. They all felt that something must be done—that the existing difficulty must be faced. The fact was that there was great difficulty in procuring a relaxation of legislative enactments. To do so required time, and, perhaps, in "another place," would provoke opposition and delay. It was not supposed that very many more troops would have to be sent out to Zululand in addition to those already there. The troops under the command of the general there were quite as large a number as could be easily disposed of for the duties for which they were detailed; but they must be kept up to their strength and not be allowed to dwindle away. Now, how was that to be done? The Government believed that if they were permitted to accept the services of those men who having left the Colours volunteered to rejoin, a great point would be gained; but to enable them to do that, some relaxtion of the legislative prohibition of 1870 was necessary. The question was one which would receive the careful attention of the Government. Probably, too, some means might be found of greasing the wheels of the military machinery. For that purpose the Government would appeal to the military Advisers of the Crown as to what relaxations and changes in the existing brigade depôt system, could be recommended; and, of course, it would be on the responsibility of the Government either to accept or to pass by those recommendations. His noble Friend behind him (Viscount Hardinge) had said that, out-of-doors, there was a belief that a Committee was to be appointed to inquire into the brigade
  676
  depôt system. It would be satisfactory to the House to hear that such was the case. He hoped that such an inquiry, and a slight relaxation of legislative prohibitions, such as he had already described, would meet the exigencies of the case, and place them in a much better position in the future than they were in at the present moment.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I am exceedingly anxious to say a word with regard to the question before the House. There are difficulties to which frank reference has been made in the course of the debate. The subject is a most grave and serious one. It concerns everyone in the country, every Member of the Legislature, and every citizen of this Empire; and I venture to hope that, whatever may be said or done on the subject, at all events we shall try to deal with it from a large and unbiassed point of view, and that we shall not suffer personal or Party feeling, either one way or the other, to influence us. It is said that the Army is not in a satisfactory condition at the present moment. My Lords, you must remember the Army has at present a severe strain upon it; I can call it nothing else. What has been its condition for some considerable time? We have had troops in the field in two distant parts of the world, and they have had to be largely supplemented by Reserves. Now, let me at once say that the question of Reserves is a question of money. You may by this, that, or the other device bolster up an Army; but unless the country is prepared to pay for an Army it cannot have an efficient one. Men will not come to your Army and stay with it unless they think it worth their while. That is the point we have to deal with. As regards the number of men obtained, the short service system, which I have always said was a tentative one, has been, to a great extent, satisfactory. The men at one time came in so rapidly, and so much in excess of our requirements, that those who had served three years were allowed at once to go into the Reserves. The feeling of the military authorities was that they ought on no account to check recruiting, but rather to let them pass into the Reserves before their full period of service had expired. Such was the state of things previous to the commencement of these wars, and, to some extent, the main

  677
  service was crippled when the pressure came. Another difficulty has reference to India. Though only two additional regiments are in India at this moment, we had to send large drafts out, because we wished to keep up regiments there to their full strength. Thus it was that the men were taken and the boys; left. The regiments at home are really composed of boys; and they are also, in fact, large depôts for the Forces serving abroad. A difficulty has also arisen in regard to the system of linked battalions—one at home and one abroad. The principle, as originally conceived, was that there should be 70 battalions at home and 70 abroad; but it is frequently found impossible to carry this out. When demands came upon them the Government could not say—"We must keep a certain number of battalions at home;" they had to meet the exigencies of the case as best they could. The result is that we have now 15 cases in which both battalions are abroad. The legislative difficulty to which my noble Friend (Viscount Bury) has referred is, I admit, a most unfortunate one. Perhaps I am as much responsible for it as anybody else; but until the difficulty arose I had no idea that we were absolutely debarred from taking any Preserve men whatever. We have applications from Reserve men to volunteer; the State would give anything for their services, and yet it is not at liberty to avail itself of their offer. I have always spoken with great respect of the Reserve Forces, who responded to the call for their services last year in a manner so creditable to themselves. I am very anxious that we should not meddle with their civil avocations more than necessary; but when we pay 6d. a-day for a man for six, and sometimes for nine years, it is a little hard to got nothing out of him when an emergency arises. That is a state of things which certainly requires modification. I would not force these men to serve. I would be content to allow them to volunteer from the Reserve, and we should thus get the services of more seasoned men than we do at present. At the same time, you can never expect to see such a well-seasoned Army as we had under the long service system. We must necessarily have a large proportion of young men and young non-commissioned officers. It is sad that this should be the case,
  678
  but so it is. It is really a question of payment. If you want men to stay with the Colours, you must make it worth their while. Some of the best six years' men have said that they would stay if their prospects were as good with the Colours as they would be elsewhere. You must recollect that when a man has served his short service, and obtained all his good-conduct stripes, he has to consider his position—whether he shall elect to become a non-commissioned officer and enter into a new engagement for six years, or whether he shall retire upon the Reserve; and it is not to be wondered at, considering all the risks, that he will not take the chance of becoming a non-commissioned officer. There seems to have been some misunderstanding as to what I said the other day about the localization of the Army. Local connection is, no doubt, of great value; but the localization of the Army, in the French or Prussian sense of the word, is an impossibility with our service. It is utterly inconsistent with our military system, because we have not conscription as they have. Therefore, I say that the localization of our Army is an impossibility, and must be left out of our calculations; but local connection is a desirable thing. I do not think that it would produce as many recruits as might be desired, because we have not any strong indication that the Militia are specially anxious to join a specific corps. To some extent, it is the case; but I think, generally speaking, that men go to the large towns and enlist there. Officers are generally extremely anxious to get the men away from their local depôts. They say—"Don't leave the men here, where they are tempted to desert, and where they are treated, perhaps too liberally, by their friends, and get into trouble." I am quite satisfied to leave it to the Committee to report to the Government, and I do not think there need be any alarm about going back to the old system. What would be more acceptable would be a modification of the new system; and I think it will, with changes, be found to have advantages over the old. If I chose to go into details, I could give an account of every one of these regiments. We did the best we could, and we got the Force out in a fortnight. Under the circumstances, we did the best we could in sending out troops to the Cape. I do

  679
  not admire the system of volunteering, as we have been obliged to resort to it; but that is not the question. When men were wanted, what was to be done? I think that, looking at all the circumstances, blame cannot fairly be attached to anyone for having produced such a Return as I hold in my hand, which I admit is not a satisfactory one. I hope we shall, after due deliberation, now inaugurate a system under which no man will be sent out who is not fit for immediate military duty.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he was not at all surprised that the noble Lord behind him (Lord Truro) had called attention to this subject, and he congratulated him on the discussion which had taken place. He entirely agreed with him in deploring that it was necessary to send out on a distant expedition a single soldier who, in the opinion of His Royal Highness, was not adequate for the discharge of his military duties; and as to the system of completing the drafts by means of volunteers from other regiments, he did not yield to the noble Lord in his disapprobation of that system. By doing so, they discounted their future resources and gave a considerable blow to the regimental esprit de corps which they were so anxious to promote. These results were not the inevitable consequence of what had been called the newly-adopted military system of the country. That system was expressly designed to avoid consequences of that kind. With regard to the youth of the recruits, he wished to make this observation. In a country where enlistment was voluntary there must be young recruits. If they endeavoured to get older men, they would only get those who had failed in other professions, or who were physically unfit for the Army. It therefore came to this—there must be youth somewhere, and the question was, where would they have it? The principle of short service was that it was better to have a young Army with seasoned Reserves, than an Army of older soldiers with nothing to fall back upon but raw reinforcements taken from the tail of the plough or the corner of the streets. The latter was the system which prevailed before the introduction of short service, and those who were familiar with the condition of our Army during the progress of the Crimean War must know how completely
  680
  that system had failed. The new system—the system of 1872—had not had a full or complete trial. If he wanted a description of that system, he should turn to a Memorandum prepared by the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge), which was accompanied by the Report of the Committee, commonly called General M'Dougall's Committee. At the close of His Royal Highness's Memorandum occurred words to the effect that the first battalions on foreign service ought to be on an increased establishment, and form the first part of the corps d'armée abroad. In their Report, the Committee enumerated certain steps which were, in their opinion, to be carried out whenever an expedition was sent abroad. The first step was that the Line battalions remaining at home were to be increased by calling up the Army Reserve men and Volunteers, the Militia were to be embodied, and the depôts from which casualties were to be supplied were to be expanded. A noble Lord opposite had observed that the system broke down because it was based upon the assumption that there were to be 70 battalions at home and 70 abroad; whereas, as the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of State (Viscount Bury) had informed them, there were at present not 70 battalions at home and 70 abroad, but 85 battalions abroad and only 55 at home. But the steps indicated in General M'Dougall's Committee provided for an expedition of 50 battalions, which would leave only 20 at home; and those steps, if they were properly carried out, would, he believed, be sufficient for an expedition of that magnitude. He was aware that it would not be possible to carry out in a smaller expedition the steps which would be advisable for a great European war. Taking the Reserve men as an example, they had to deal not only with the Reserve men bun with their employers; and it would be found, if the impression once got abroad that the passing of a man into the Reserve rendered him liable to serve compulsorily in the Colonies, the Army Reserve men would fail to get employment, and the Army Reserve would become unpopular. There were, therefore, other steps to be taken, steps in the same direction; and he was delighted to find that it was in contemplation to allow the Army Reserve men to volunteer for foreign service, in case of what

  681
  was termed a "minor emergency." A Bill, he understood, was on the Table of the House of Commons for that purpose; and knowing the admirable spirit with which the Reserve men responded to the call which was made upon them last year, it seemed to him they might now have a Force available by which they might expand their battalions when they wanted to send out a foreign expedition, without going to the length of compelling the Reserve men to rejoin the Colours. These steps proceeded on the principle of the system of 1872, and he rejoiced to hear that the Government were considering the propriety of having recourse to them. Up to now nothing had been done; not only had none of the steps referred to been taken, but the system had been tried under extremely disadvantageous circumstances. The Afghan War broke out about the time of the relieving season; and so it came to pass that Reserves went out to India, and regiments did not come back again. Then came the Zulu War, which kept 10,000 White men in South Africa, and, besides all this, although the Memorandum of His Royal Highness provided for increasing the strength of the 18 battalions next for foreign service, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had not been able to find out that 18 battalions of increased strength were in any part of the United Kingdom when the war in South Africa broke out. There were several battalions at an increased strength; but these were, he believed, at Malta at the time. If only the first stress of the emergency were met by such means as had been indicated, he believed the system of 1872 would work well; and he hoped the Government would not lose a moment in introducing into Parliament the necessary Bill, which would receive the friendly consideration of every Member of that House.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I should not have taken part in this debate were it not that some remarks have been made which seems to require a little explanation on my part. It will be borne in mind that I inherited this scheme from the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Cardwell), and I think it will be generally admitted that I did everything in my power to make it succeed. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has just said that it was
  682
  part of the scheme that 18 regiments should be kept up to their full strength; but when I came into Office I only found four regiments of that strength, and they were kept ready for the purpose of Indian relief. In order to keep 18 regiments up to their full strength, the Army had to be increased. The events of the last two years have, no doubt, caused considerable confusion in the system; and I am bound to agree with the opinion of the noble Lord (Lord Truro) that the system is not well suited to the present circumstances under which small wars arise. I am sure we shall all be glad if a remedy can be obtained. With reference to the passing into the Reserve of men of three years' service, that course was taken in consequence of the increase in the number of recruits, which rose, on an increase being made by me to the pay of the Army, from between 17,000 and 18,000 to between 29,000 and 30,000, making the Army for a time 2,000 or 3,000 men in excess of what was authorized by Parliament. Two courses were open to me—either to stop recruiting, or to fill up the Reserves. There was a complaint throughout the country that the Reserves were not being filled up, and I thought their more rapid progress very important, and I made an effort to fill them up. The consequence of my doing so was that they made a substantial appearance last year; whereas, two or three years ago, they only amounted to 2,000 or 3,000 men. Of course, I could not keep an excessive number in the Army without invading the rights of the House of Commons; but, by what I did, I secured two men for one—one for the Reserve, and one for the Army. In that way I got the Army full, and we had available for a foreign war a number of serviceable and seasoned soldiers. The Afghan campaign commenced, and though those who conducted it did not draw largely on British Forces, only retaining two additional regiments which were coming home, still drafts were continually going out from regiments at home, and when there was a sudden call for the services of these regiments elsewhere, having sent out their best men to India, they had to be filled up with what are called boys. I agree that there is nothing more unfortunate than that a boy who is hardly fit to carry his musket and knapsack should be sent out

  683
  to hard service abroad, and as that was never meant to be done, a number of the more youthful recruits were sent to the depôts. I do not, however, despair, as some do, of the fighting qualities of young men. If you read the annals of the English Army, you will see that young men between 20 and 25 have done as good service as those between 25 and 30. Yon will find, as a matter of fact, from the Indian Returns, that there is a degree of health and fitness on the part of men who go out at 20 years of age which you cannot find in men who go out at any other age. I admit the importance of having noncommissioned officers fit for their work, and of offering high inducements to efficient men to remain in the Army at the period when they have to consider whether they shall do so or seek some other occupation; but one of the great misfortunes that accompany short service is this—that it is difficult to persuade men who have become non-commissioned officers, after being about four years in the Army, to continue in it when their term of six years is completed. A man who has served a number of years in the Army naturally desires to have something to look forward to in the future; and although it may be more expensive, I cannot help thinking, seeing that non-commissioned officers are the back-bone of the Army, that it would be worth while to incur the expense of offering inducements to retain a limited number of non-commissioned officers, instead of being thrown back, as in many instances, upon young men of insufficient position for the work pressed upon them. The only way to have an Army fit for foreign service is either to form and maintain an effective Army of old soldiers, taking your chance of going into the open market to recruit it, or to enlarge your Reserves by passing men gradually through the Army into it. The proposition was that there should be 25 per cent of old soldiers in all the regiments; but if you cannot get people to enlist for long service, you must take them for short; and, in fact, we have had to fall back on the system of recruiting entirely for short service, with the provision that those who go in for short service should be able at a certain period to go in for the longer service. We are all animated by the same object, and I trust that the recommendations of the Committee
  684
  which is to be appointed will lead to an improvement in the working of the present system.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLwas glad to acknowledge that the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook) had given the plan of his Predecessors most cordial support; and the Report of the Brigade Depôt Committee, which he appointed, contained much information of value to all interested in the subject. Tie agreed with all that had been said by his noble Friend opposite (Viscount Bury), and concurred with the illustrious Duke (the Duke of Cambridge) that there should be statutory power to volunteer from the Reserves into an Army like that now engaged in Colonial service, if statutory power was necessary. That appeared to be a proper way of meeting the difficulty. There was now on the Table of the other House a Bill to effect that object. There were now 38,000 men in the Reserve, and they might be confidently appealed to to increase the Army. He would be delighted if the new Committee, composed of such able men, should be able to suggest other means than those which had been suggested by the Committee of 1876. All he could say was that be relied upon the Government to support the scheme of which they had now testified their approval, and he hoped they would never see a return to that state of things which existed in the time of the Crimean War, and of which the Commission appointed in 1867 gave such a lamentable account. The youth of the recruits in Lord Raglan's time, and also in Lord Dalhousie's time, everyone knew. But the recruits now were of a very different quality, and, as his noble Friend opposite had said, they were material upon which they could rely for splendid service. The difference between having men too old and men too young was this—that men too young had a great deal of vitality and activity in them, which could not be said of men too old. However, by availing themselves of volunteers from the Reserves, they might fill the ranks with older soldiers than they had at present, and then they would have a powerful Army.
  LORD TRUROsaid a few words in reply which were inaudible.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.