Sitting of 25 May 1880

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Fishing Vessels (Regulations as to Lights), appointed.
STANDING COMMITTEES—Public Petitions, appointed and nominated; Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions [May 24] reported—Ordered—First Reading—Savings Banks*[188].
Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Eastbourne, &c.)*[189].
First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands Provisional Order (No. 2)*[187].
Second Reading—Public Works Loans*[171].
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath.

QUESTIONS.

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS—THE EXPLOSION AT WALSALL.
  SIR CHARLES FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to institute an official inquiry into the cause of the late terrible boiler explosion at Birchills, Walsall?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL,in reply, said, that the Home Office had sent down a special counsel, while the Board of Trade had sent down their Engineer in Chief, with one of his staff, to attend the Coroner's inquest and report specially on the case. When those gentlemen had reported to their respective Departments it would be possible to form an accurate idea as to the causes of the calamity, for the sufferers by which the deepest sympathy was felt.

  NAVY—LOSS OF H.M.S. "ATALANTA."
  MR. W. HOLMSasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the proposed inquiry with reference to the loss of the "Atalanta" is to be of a departmental character, conducted by the Admiralty officials; and, if so, whether, for the satisfaction of the public, the Government will appoint a Commission of Inquiry independent of the Admiralty, so as to ensure a public and thoroughly impartial investigation of the facts connected with that disaster?
  MR. SHAW LEPEVRE: I stated in reply to a Question yesterday what will be the constitution of the Committee of Inquiry on the Atalanta; and I am not able to give any other reply to-day. It is true that in the interval I have received letters from two Members of the House, complaining of the constitution of the Committee; but I have no reason to believe that the Committee has not given general satisfaction. Lord North-brook, therefore, is not prepared to alter its constitution.
  MR. JENKINSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the constitution of the Committee appointed to inquire into the loss of the "Atalanta?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that the instructions to be given to the Com-

  429
  mittee will not be completed before the 8th of June; and I hope, between this time and that date, the hon. Member will find no difficulty in bringing forward the subject which he desires to present to the notice of the House. Supply will be taken on Thursday, and also on Friday; but the Government cannot undertake to put aside their Business for the purpose of enabling the hon. Member to bring on his Motion.
  MR. JENKINSgave Notice that he would call attention to the subject upon going into Supply on Thursday.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON, 1854—AMERICAN FISHERIES—THE FORTUNE BAY DISPUTE—FURTHER PAPERS.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether further Papers respecting the occurrences at Fortune Bay, Newfoundland, in January 1878, will be communicated to Parliament (in continuation of those presented by Command in 1878); and, if yes, how soon they will be presented?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, the Papers would be presented as soon as possible; but he could not name the exact date.

  LAW OF DISTRESS—LEGISLATION.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a recent instance of the operation of the Law of Distress which is reported to have taken place at Bradwortley, in Devonshire, where it is alleged that a number of bullocks, the property of a farmer named Chubb, having strayed into a field on an adjoining farm, were there seized and distrained for rent; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to propose the abolition of that Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, his attention had not been called to the case referred to. It was in accordance with the law which now existed that if, through the negligence of an owner, his animals strayed on the land of an adjoining owner who was in arrear of rent, the landlord could distrain them. The power was one that was seldom
  430
  exercised, as it was necessary first for the animals to stray; next, that they should stray upon land belonging to a farmer in arrear of rent; and, lastly, that the landlord should be willing to exercise the power. The Government had no intention of dealing with the question specially; but the principle was palpably erroneous, and if ever the question came before them it would be dealt with.

  COAL MINES—THE ABERCARNE COLLIERY EXPLOSION, 1878.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the fact that a large number of the bodies of those who lost their lives in the Abercarne Colliery Explosion, which took place on 11th Sept. 1878, yet remain in the mine; whether, considering that this is merely a question of cost to the owners of the mine, he will exert his influence to have the bodies restored to their relatives; and, whether he will consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill to compel owners of mines and collieries to recover bodies of those who may lose their lives in mines, and, in the event of their being unable to do so, of making provisions in the Bill to ensure this result, either by levying a rate in the district or paying from the imperial funds a sum sufficient for such a purpose?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL,in reply, said, that at the commencement of 1879 a very large expenditure had been incurred in efforts to recover the bodies of those who had perished in the Abercarne Colliery Explosion. The amount had been placed at between £15,000 and £20,000, and he might safely state that the sum expended had been upwards of £10,000. The Inspector had reported to the Home Office that the works were closed, and that to re-open them for the purpose of recovering the bodies would involve an expenditure of something like £50,000. He was not able to give any assurance that the Home Secretary would propose to Parliament any measure for the recovery of bodies under similar circumstances. They could not bind the owners by Act of Parliament to do what, in some cases, would be an impossibility. It was only fair to the owners to say that, in the great majority

  431
  of cases, they had never been wanting in satisfying the utmost claims of humanity and generosity.
  MR. MACDONALDasked whether it was a fact that the mine was being approached by mines in other directions?
  MR. ARTHUR PEELreplied, that what he had stated was all the information the Government at present possessed.

  COAL MINES—THE LYCETT COLLIERY EXPLOSION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the recommendation of the coroner's jury who recently sat to inquire into the causes of the explosion which took place on the 21st January last at Lycett Colliery, North Stafford, whereby sixty-two persons lost their lives, and which is as follows:—"That blasting by powder should be discontinued altogether in fiery mines while men were working therein;" whether, considering the opinions of inspectors and coroner's juries on the subject, he will forthwith introduce a Bill having for its object the prohibition of blasting with gunpowder or other explosive substances in fiery mines, or regulating their use so that the loss of life from that cause may be prevented; and, whether, in accordance with the promise given by the late Government, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the proceedings which took place before the coroner's inquest?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL,in reply, said, that the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been called to the Report referred to. There was to be a meeting of the Mine Inspectors on the subject. There was also now sitting a Committee on "Explosions in Coal Mines." He had made inquiry when the Report of the Commission could be issued, and he found it might be a question of a few months; and they would report not only on the question of explosive substances, but on the use of lamps and other appliances in mines. There was great difference of opinion on the subject, and he would lay the Report on the Table as soon as he could.

  ARMY—FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
  MR. J. COWENasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention
  432
  of the Government to give effect to the Resolution respecting flogging in the Army that was moved in the last Parliament by the noble Lord the late Leader of the Opposition, declaring that all corporal punishment for military offences ought to be abolished?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government adhere without reserve to the views expressed by my noble Friend the present Secretary of State for India in the speech which he made on the 17th of July, 1879, in moving a Resolution relative to flogging. But, before giving effect to those views, we are bound, to make the most careful inquiries as to what punishments can be substituted for flogging, which the House will remember can only be inflicted for offences committed on active service, and punishable with death. On the result of those inquiries the discipline of the Army at a grave crisis may depend; and those who are responsible for that discipline should have sufficient time to complete the investigations which, in fact, I had commenced some time before the hon. Member gave Notice of his Question. There is no possibility of this being done in time to carry through Parliament a new Army Discipline Act during the present short Session; but if the House will place its confidence in us—[Laughter]—I am not surprised at the laugh from one particular Member opposite—I undertake to bring before it, early next Session, proposals which will be, I hope, acceptable to Parliament and the country. Under these circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway), who has privately communicated with me on this subject, will not think it necessary to bring the question before the House during the present Session.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, that after the answer which had been given by the Secretary of State for War to the Question of his hon. Friend, he should not proceed this Session with the Motion of which he had given Notice with reference to the abolition of flogging.

  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department,

  433
  When the Report of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Parochial Charities of the City of London will be distributed to Members of the House?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL,in reply, said, the Report was complete, with the exception of the map, which would be ready in about a fortnight. The map was necessary to illustrate and explain the Report, and it would be better to wait for it.

  GLEBE LOAN (IRELAND) ACTS, 1870 AND 1871—LEGISLATION.
  MR. LITTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to continue the provisions of the Glebe Loan (Ireland) Acts 1870 and 1871, for affording facilities for obtaining loans for the erection and improvement of Glebe Houses and acquiring lands for Glebes, and which facilities under the Act 41 and 42 Vic. c. 6, will expire on the 30th August 1880?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am sorry I am unable to give any very definite reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, as the matter it relates to is one that belongs quite as much to the Treasury as it does to the Irish Government. I shall confer with my noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on the subject; and, meanwhile, would ask my hon. Friend to repeat his Question in two or three days, or else wait until the Government declares its intentions with regard to the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington).

  TURKEY—LIGHTHOUSES AND LIFE-SAVING ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. C. PALMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he could state what amount of dues is collected from British and Foreign Vessels at Constantinople for the special service of maintaining the Light Ship at the mouth of the Bosphorus, and the life saving establishments on the coasts of the Black Sea; and what is the amount annually expended on those services; and, whether the services referred to are suffering in efficiency in consequence of the funds collected for their maintenance being improperly applied to other purposes?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The information at present in the Foreign Office is not sufficient to give a complete answer to the Question of the hon. Member; but Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has been instructed to furnish a full Report on the whole subject as soon as possible.

  TURKEY—CONCESSION OF LIGHTHOUSES AND SHIPPING DUES.
  MR. C. PALMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government is aware that the concession, under which a French Company farm the Turkish Lighthouses and collect dues on shipping for upholding the same, expires on the 20th of August next; and, whether the Government has considered the desirability of directing Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople to endeavour, in conjunction with the representatives of other maritime nations, to get the whole of the lights and life-saving establishments on the Turkish coasts put into the hands of an International Commission, which should be empowered to levy such dues as might be required for the efficient administration of the service?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The question of lighthouse dues in Turkey has for some time past engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Various complaints have been made, which there is reason to think are well-founded, that the amount of these dues is much in excess of the rates required for the efficient maintenance of the lighthouse service. Her Majesty's Government consider that the whole subject should be fully and impartially considered, and they are in communication with the Porte and with other foreign Governments concerned with the view to an inquiry of this nature. The importance of the subject, British shipping interests being chiefly concerned, is fully recognized. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that the existing concession to Messrs. Collas will expire in August next. It does not terminate until September, 1884.

  TURKEY—MR. GOSCHEN—THE INSTRUCTIONS.
  MR. A. BALFOURasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he proposes to lay upon the Table of the

  435
  House the instructions given to Mr. Goschen; and, if so, when?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The instructions given to Mr. Goschen are not yet completed, because we are waiting for the answers of certain Powers whose concerted action has been invited. Those answers are expected to be received in a short time; and we shall then, I hope, be in a condition to lay Papers on the Table, including the instructions to Mr. Goschen.

  UNITED STATES—THE CLAYTONBULWER TREATY.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, Whether the Government of the United States had taken any steps for the abrogation of this Treaty?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No communication in the sense of this Question has been received from the United States Government.

  BULGARIA AND EASTERN ROUMELIA—THE MUSSULMAN POPULATION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question, of which I have not had an opportunity of giving the right hon. Gentleman Notice—namely, if, when he derided on Monday, as exaggerated, the statement in my Question as to the condition of the Mahometan population in Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, he was cognisant of the contents of the Blue Book distributed this morning, in every page of which authentic and circumstantial details are given of cruelties to which Mahometans have been and are still subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is impossible for me to answer satisfactorily a Question of this kind, given, as it has been, without Notice; but I must take exception to the expression of the hon. Member. It is not for me to deride the Question, or the expression of any hon. Member of this House, nor did I deride the Question of the hon. Gentleman. I remarked that, if I answered the Question of the hon. Gentleman without observation or comment, I should become a party to assertions which I was not prepared to make; and, therefore, I noticed those assertions, which notice the hon. Member now describes under the name of derision.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I shall repeat my Question on Thursday.

  QUEEN'S SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord KENSINGTON)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as followeth:—
  I have received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
  I shall gladly avail myself of your assistance in My endeavours to advance the true interests of the Country, and to promote the prosperity and happiness of My People. And you may be assured of My sincere desire to co-operate with you in all measures which may be submitted to you with a view to the furtherance of these objects.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—THE DERBY DAY.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. E. POWER,in moving that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday, said: I had hoped I should have been spared the task of inflicting a speech upon the House on this occasion, and I believed that if I did what is wise I should immediately sit down, after briefly recommending hon. Members opposite to go into the Library and read in Hansard the sentiments I have so often expressed upon this subject. Such a course, if generally adopted, would certainly curtail the never-ending flow of words and the reiteration of ideas for which this Assembly has become so famous. The world looks upon this House, not as a great working machine, but as a talking apparatus; and one of the principal reasons why the world looks upon us in this light is because hon. Members persist in bringing forward Motions which they know they have no chance of carrying, which contain no great principle, and which nobody has ever asked for. I must accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) with being a great introducer of new ideas. I am afraid that all the chimerical notions of the day have found a resting place in the brain of the hon. Baronet. It is probably his good nature and charitable spirit that makes him patronize so many forlorn hopes. I know of nothing so detrimental to the interests of a deliberative Assembly as

    437
    small heads filled with, crotchety ideas. The hon. Member for Carlisle and those who act with him are all theorists, one of the most dangerous classes of men in society. He is a patron of the Permissive Bill, he is an advocate of Sunday closing, and he is quite welcome to throw into his cauldron of impossibilities the abolition of the Derby Day. What I object to in the conduct of my hon. Friend is that he has no experience of the subjects upon which he undertakes to legislate. He talks about the liquor question, yet he never drinks; he talks about the racing question, yet he never races; and he always appears to forget that one pound of experience is worth a ton of theory. The adjournment of the House for the Derby Day has become a Parliamentary institution. On the last occasion, when the question of adjourning on that day was mooted, the supporters of the Motion for adjournment won in the commonest of canters, and this year they will win in a walk. A great many things have happened since the last Derby. I believe I am the only Member who in this Assembly ventured to predict the probable result of the last Election; but I was laughed at as a man generally is who tells the truth. However, the Liberals have returned to the promised land, and I am sure that they are anxious—or they ought to be anxious—to celebrate their victories upon what I must call the classic ground of Epsom. All parties in this House require an occasional holiday, and most of all Her Majesty's late Ministers. They who by day and night did battle fierce and long with Whigs and Radicals, with Home Rulers and Obstructives—surely a day of rest and recreation is only due to those poor mortals whose race is run. So also, Sir, with Her Majesty's present Advisers, for although they have had six long, tedious years of rest—or rather, I should perhaps say, of unremunerative labour—they may fairly claim by anticipation a day's recreation, for, like a young bear, they have all their troubles before them. The air of Epsom may brace them for their perilous journey. Again, the officers of the House require the day to invigorate them; and I refuse to believe that the hon. Baronet opposite is serious in his opposition to this Motion. I do not think that his generous mind would consent to inter-
    438
    fere with the innocent enjoyment of so many of his fellow-Members. If he was really serious he would not confine his opposition within the walls of this Assembly. He does not do so with his pet baby, the Permissive Bill, but stumps the country with it, trying to make it assume more manly features, although it was sometimes massacred with the Innocents—a system of baby-farming which must be regarded as most detrimental to the interests of the Empire. His great argument has always been—"Let those who will go to the Derby go, and let those who do not remain here and legislate." I am afraid the hon. Baronet would not get the requisite number of 40 to form a House, and even if he did it would be a very dangerous and unconstitutional proceeding. We must remember that he is a violent Radical; all Radicals are violent, except, of course, when they sit upon the Treasury Bench. I much fear, therefore, that if the hon. Baronet had his way those who went to Epsom would on their return find the Constitution altered, the Permissive Bill passed, and the "incarcerated Baronet" liberated. Now, Sir, the hon. Baronet is super-excellent, but he is very inconsistent. He has voted to give bank clerks a holiday, yet he refuses to-day to give the clerks and the hard-worked officials of this establishment a holiday. Of course, we shall hear a great deal about scoundrelism, ruffianism, and every other ism which may suggest itself to the fertile imagination of my hon. Friend. I have often wondered where he ever met all this dreadful amount of rascality. It could not possibly be on a racecourse, for he will not admit that he ever was there; and I can only hope that it was not at any of those political meetings that he is so fond of addressing. It cannot be denied that fortunes are made and lost upon horseflesh; but there are also fortunes lost and made upon elections. The last time this question came before us it was a very unlucky occasion for sporting Members. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) very generously gave us a "tip"—I do not know whether the hon. Baronet knows what a "tip" is. We all went off and backed the opinion of the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire instead of our own, and the selection of the hon. Gentleman was nowhere. I wish to benefit by his

    439
    experience, but I cannot refuse to give a tip upon this occasion, particularly as I know the hon. Baronet will take no exception to it; and I will tell him this—the Devil will have it all his own way to-morrow. He is a very warm favourite; there are only six to one against him, and I advise the hon. Baronet to have him upon his side. I see around me the faces of many who had not the misfortune to sit in the last Parliament, and I should like very much to address a few words to them. To the Members of the third Party in the House I would recommend very strongly that they should follow me into the Lobby to-day, because it will be about the only occasion they have had this Session of being in the majority. The most unlucky vote that you ever gave will be one against me to-night. Out of the 95 men who voted against me upon the last occasion 33 have lost their seats. Where, I would ask, is now the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Assheton), who was foremost in the van, and opposed me in a speech of great pomposity, worthy of a more serious cause? He was a Conservative of Conservatives; yet he met with a well-deserved fate, and an enlightened constituency has punished him for his anti-Derby proclivities. I should like to know where is the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Blake)—he who was so eloquent in his denunciations? He was a Liberal of Liberals; yet he, too, is gone. He declared that he saw only one road which led to the Derby, and that was the road to ruin. If the successors of those two hon. Gentlemen are listening to me I sincerely hope they will read the moral of the tale. Now, any speculation or any occupation in life may ruin a man if that man is fool enough not to take care of his money. Many a man has been ruined by the expenses of a contested election. I admit freely and frankly that the Derby is not the great fashionable race it used to be some years ago; but it is what is more important—it is essentially the people's race, and it is now approaching what I may call its glorious anniversary. It was founded in 1780, and I refuse to believe that Englishmen will object to celebrate that event in a becoming manner. The hon. Baronet objects to be seen upon a racecourse. Well, I think that objection comes very badly from the late master
    440
    of the Cumberland Foxhounds. But I have seen my hon. Friend in far more objectionable places—I do not wish to tell the House. [Cries of "Name !"] I have seen the hon. Baronet everywhere. I have seen him in shop windows; I have seen him on temperance banners that were carried by very unsteady hands indeed; and where I last saw him, and where he certainly looks best, is smiling in wax at Madame Tussaud's. At the same time, it is only fair to my hon. Friend to say that he was not in the Chamber of Horrors. I do not object to the hon. Baronet amusing himself in Baker Street if he chooses to enjoy himself there; I have no wish to interfere with his amusement, as it appears he wishes to interfere with mine. But there are a group of Motions which are branches from the same root. We have Sunday Closing, the Permissive Bill, the Abolition of Suburban Races, and this question to-day. They all spring from the melancholy Sabbatarian spirit that endeavours to overshadow the rational and the national enjoyments of the people. Show me a strait-laced people and I will show you an effeminate and degenerate race. I do not believe in those saintly reformers who go about the world moaning and groaning over the sins of others. Why, Sir, we are no worse than our ancestors; on the contrary, I think we are a little better. These bucolic reformers always remind me of one of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, who was a Director of the Glasgow Bank, and who declared that he never read the paper on Monday because it was printed on Sunday. The doctrines of effeminitism, the doctrines of what I might call Miss Mollyism, and what, if it were a Parliamentary term, I would call washer womanism, are unworthy of our consideration. The whole world would gape and stare if the noble Lord the late Leader of the Opposition was sitting at Westminster while the greatest race in the world was being run. In our great social and political arrangements we ought to preserve the love of an ancient and manly pastime. The history of horse-racing carries a man back to the early days of our civilization. Our ancestors believed that rational amusements were indispensable for the building up of a nation, and the greatest barrier against degeneracy. Look back over the history of horse-racing and scan

    441
    the list of animals with which you have challenged and beaten the world, and tell us by your vote to-night that you are proud of the position to which you have raised horse-racing, and that you believe it to be, in the language of one of your Sovereigns, "the manly and noble sport of a free people."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday next,"—(Mr. Richard Power.)
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I am very sorry to hear from my hon. Friend that so many supporters of my Motion last year have lost their seats. I am still here; and I believe it will be found, if electioneering records were searched, that it was not on account of their opposition to the Derby that my supporters were slain. I will not follow my hon. Friend's speech, because it was hardly to the point, and although good-humoured, it does not prove any reason that this House should adjourn for the Derby. There are, I am glad to see, many new Members in this House, and I am sure we all desire to maintain the credit and dignity of this House. I ask, is it for the honour, and the credit, and the dignity of this national Assembly that we should adjourn in honour of a horse race? I have tried to find out what are the arguments that have at different times been brought to the notice of the House to induce it to adjourn for the Derby, and I find they are these—First, that it gives a holiday; second, that it is a time-honoured custom; third, that racing is a noble and manly sport; and, fourth, that it is a national sport. Before I sit down, I hope I shall convince the House of the untruth of all these propositions. Why should we have a holiday? We are often told in pathetic tones, Mr. Speaker, that it is for your benefit that the Speaker and the officers of the House are most anxious to have a holiday on the Derby Day. If that were so, nobody would be more ready than I to provide for your amusement; but I do not think there is anything in this holiday argument. This new House of Commons has only sat eight days, and so far we have done nothing except to swear in ourselves, and try to prevent other people from swearing in. It is a new House of Commons, and I believe
    442
    the new Members are only anxious to have some Business put before them. The hon. Member himself alluded to the four Bank holidays we already have. Let us have our holidays on a Bank holiday—some respectable day. I do not object to the House holding holiday when it wants one; I only object to its being held in honour of a horse race. Then, again, I deny that it is a time-honoured, custom. The race itself is only 100 years old, which is not very old; but the custom of adjourning for the Derby is not old at all. It was first of all moved by Lord George Bentinck, in 1847, when the race was 70 years old, and he was opposed by Mr. Hume, and, according to the report I have, by Mr. Bright, "in a very bitter speech." The third argument is that it is a noble and manly thing to go to the Derby. I see nothing noble or manly about it. What is there manly in going and sitting on a stand, in a cloud of dust, surrounded by a crowd of bawling blacklegs?—sitting there and watching 20 jockeys making 20 horses gallop as fast as they can? My hon. Friend says I know nothing about it, because I have never been to the Derby. Why, I have been there before he was born, and I know the sort of company I have met there, and the sort of company he will meet if he goes to-morrow. There is nothing noble or manly about horse-racing. It has not even the manliness there is in fighting. We know that in this Christian country one of the most noble and manly things is to kill somebody else or get killed yourself; but there is little chance of that at the Derby. In cricket we play ourselves, in boating we row ourselves, and in football we fight with one another. What is there manly in hiring these jockeys to win money for you? To call that noble is the greatest abuse of terms I ever heard. It is said this is a national sport, and that seems a great argument. Only use a long word that has no meaning, and anybody will be convinced. In one sense I admit that it is national. I admit that many thousands of all classes of people take the greatest interest in it. The newspapers, which write about things that will sell, are full of accounts of races, and jockeys, and trainers; and I quite admit that there are hundreds and thousands of people who take more interest in the state of the odds than in the state of

    443
    Europe. It is popular with persons of all classes. I remember that the Lords' Committee on Intemperance, on which there were several Bishops and two Archbishops, were obliged to suspend their sittings during Good wood Week. But it is not a national institution in the sense which the hon. Member means, because there is a large proportion of the people who are opposed to it. Drinking is a national amusement just as much as gambling. It is the most popular national pastime we have. Yet, what would the House say if the hon. Member for Derby on this side (Mr. Bass), or the hon. Member for Middlesex on the other (Mr. Coope), were to propose that we should adjourn in order that we should have a special day for drinking—a mere drinking holiday, a special day! It would be every whit as rational that we should adjourn in honour of a great gambling day. But you say it is not gambling, it is sport. It is all nonsense. Do not tell me they run horses for sport. If all these noblemen and gentlemen ran for nothing but sport there would be no stakes and no added money. They would meet together in a park, and see which man's horses went fastest. The whole thing is money from beginning to end—an attempt on the part of persons to live by their wits—and I say the proposal is not worthy of this House. What did Lord Chesterfield say? He left an injunction in his will that if his son were to reside for one night in Newmarket—that infamous seminary of iniquity and ill-manners—he should forfeit £5,000 to the Dean of Westminster. I do not suppose that he was a Puritan, a theorist, a Radical, a Permissive Bill man, or any other of the things which the hon. Member has called me. Now, I ask the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), who I see is getting ready to anathemathize me, to give some facts to prove that racing is any better now than it was then, or that Epsom is any better than Newmarket. I say it is not; and I say that the whole system of racing is an organized system of rascality and roguery from beginning to end. I was grieved to hear my hon. Friend for one moment compare horse racing with fox hunting. He can know nothing about fox hunting, or he would not say that. Last year the House, by large majorities, passed a Bill to get rid
    444
    of suburban races. Everybody voted for it except two hon. Members, one of them being my lamented Friend, Mr. Wheelhouse. I mention that, because the principal opponent of that Bill—Sir Charles Legard—said—
    "He had attended most of the race-meetings within the vicinity of London, and he had never seen more disorderly conduct there than at the meetings held 200 or 300 miles away from the Metropolis."
    And I say it is not worthy of this House to legislate for the rough and to patronize the roué. ["Oh!"] Yes; you patronize the Derby only because lords and ladies and Peers and Members of Parliament go to it. You put down the races in the suburbs, to which the working men go; but you patronize the Derby, which is just as bad, because the swells go there. This House is pretty full of new Members; they know its history; and I believe they are as jealous of its honour as any of the old Members; and I ask them to follow me into the Lobby to help me in giving a final blow to a practice which is somewhat mischievous, altogether contemptible, and unworthy of the support of an intelligent House of Commons.
    MR. CHAPLINremarked, that as he had only just returned from the scene which the hon. Baronet was anxious to prevent the roués of the House from attending to-morrow, he had not heard all of his remarks; but he would say a few words in reply to that portion he did hear. The hon. Baronet asked whether the House would promote its dignity by adjourning for a horse race? Well, that depended upon what horse race it was. If this were a question of going to a suburban meeting, perhaps hon. Members would agree with his hon. Friend; but the Derby was a great national institution. His hon. Friend objected to what he called the holiday argument, and said there was no reason why Members should take a holiday to-morrow. He thought one good reason for taking a holiday to-morrow was afforded by the fact that there was no Business to be done in the House. If his hon. Friend wanted a better reason than that, he could supply him with another. His hon. Friend could not expect the whole House of Commons to be as good as he was himself; and whether the House were permitted to adjourn or not it was certain that a great many hon. Mem-

    445
    bers would go to Epsom; and the result would be that whatever Business, if any, was transacted, would be transacted under the most disadvantageous circumstances in a very thin House, which by no means represented the opinions of the country. His hon. Friend ridiculed the idea that this was a time-honoured custom, and in support of his view cited an excessively bitter speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). For his own part, he did not remember that speech; but he did remember a spirited speech delivered by the present Prime Minister in support of the Derby. His hon. Friend opposite spoke of horse-racing as "nothing but an attempt to live by one's wits," and as "an organized system of rascality and roguery." The present Prime Minister, however, described it as a noble, national, and manly pastime, and he said that without any qualification whatever. He would, therefore, leave this point to be settled between the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. He supposed it was a new instance of the re-union of the Liberal Party. His hon. Friend wound up his speech by denouncing horse racing as "an. organized system of rascality and roguery." The following information he had acquired on the course at Epsom to-day. He found it in The Licensed Victuallers' Gazette, and the article was signed by a gentleman who called himself "The Aristocratic Tout." A list was given of the probable starters for the Derby, as well as the owners' names. Out of 22 horses which were likely to start, more than half belonged to distinguished Members of the Liberal Party. His hon. Friend said that gentlemen in these days raced for no other purpose than to make money and to live by their wits. Now, he would remind his hon. Friend that the Duke of Westminster was going to start three horses—Bend Or, the first favourite; Muncaster, the second favourite; and a filly called Evasion. The Prime Minister was not the owner of a racehorse; and it was a lamentable fact that the stable of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India appeared to be in so deplorable a condition at the present time that his noble Friend could not find an animal good enough to run. Lord Rosebery, whom some people might re-
    446
    gard as a greater person than the Prime Minister, whose return he was instrumental in securing, started two horses—Ercildoune and Pelleas. Another owner was Count Festetics, a distinguished Hungarian, whose sympathies were probably more or less Liberal at the present time, as he must have been enchanted with the Austrian letter of the Prime Minister. Prince Soltykoff was the owner of another horse, and as he was a Russian he was sure to command the sympathies of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Lord Falmouth was likewise the owner of a horse that would probably start. His hon. Friend spoke of these gentlemen, who were the pillars of the Turf at the present day, as persons whose only purpose was to make money and to live by their wits.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONexplained that he had said nothing about the gentlemen referred to. What he really said was that the only purpose of horse-racing was to make money.
    MR. CHAPLINobserved, that his hon. Friend had also said that racing was an organized system of rascality and roguery. If his hon. Friend spoke thus of a pursuit in which men like Lord Falmouth were engaged, his language was such as ought not to be used in the House, and it was a cruel libel on their character. Among other pillars of the Turf he might mention Mr. Jardine, a Member of that House, and Mr. Vyner, a distinguished Liberal of Yorkshire and of the county to which he himself belonged. He believed he had advanced some reasons to show why hon. Members on the opposite side of the House might regard with leniency the proposal to adjourn over the Derby Day. By allowing hon. Members to go to Epsom they would be supporting the Leaders of their own Party; and although it was a moot point whether the Caucus or the Whig element contributed most to the success of the Liberals at the General Election, he thought they ought to show the Whigs their gratitude by going down to Epsom to-morrow.
    MR. CHILDERSremarked, that Her Majesty's Government did not as such take any part in this debate; and, therefore, he spoke only in his individual capacity. Whether the House adjourned or not was indeed to the Members of the Government a matter of indifference; because having only recently come into

    447
    power they had a great deal to do, and if an adjournment were agreed to they would simply have to pass a certain number of hours in their Offices instead of in the House. In point of fact, however, there was no Business to be transacted in the House to-morrow. There was a Notice for Supply; but no Supply could possibly be taken. There was an Order for Ways and Means; but no Ways and Means were wanted. Nothing else was on the Paper. If the House met to-morrow the Speaker, the Clerks at the Table, and other officials of the House would come down at 12 o'clock. It was impossible to suppose that 40 Members would come down to do nothing; and, therefore, the result would be that the Speaker would have to remain in the House till 4 o'clock, after which hour only could attention be called to the fact that 40 Members were not present. It struck him that it would be better, instead of going through that form, and depriving the officers of the House of their holiday, to let them have it at once; they would gain, nobody would lose. Therefore, he should support the Motion.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 285: Noes 115: Majority 170.—(Div. List, No. 5.)

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUH).

    ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [21st May],
    And which Amendment was,
    To add, after the first word "That" in the Original Question, the words "Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, having claimed at the Table of this House to make an Affirmation or Declaration instead of the Oath prescribed by Law, founding his claim upon the terms of the Act 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and the Evidence Amendment Acts of 1869 and 1870, and stating that he had been permitted to affirm in Courts of Justice by virtue of the said Evidence Amendment Acts: And it having been referred to a Select Committee to consider and report their opinion whether persons entitled, under the provisions of the Evidence Amendment Act 1869 and the Evidence Amendment Act 1870, to make a solemn Declaration instead of an Oath in Courts of Justice, may be admitted to make an Affirmation or Declaration instead of an Oath in this House in pursuance of the Acts
    448
    29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72; And the said Committee having reported that in their opinion such persons cannot be admitted to make an Affirmation or Declaration instead of an Oath in pursuance of the said Acts:
    And Mr. Bradlaugh having since come to the Table of the House for the purpose of taking the Oath prescribed by the 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and the 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, and objection having been made to his taking the said Oath, it be referred to a Select Committee to consider and report their opinion to the House whether the House has the right, founded on precedent or otherwise, by Resolution to prevent a duly elected Member who is willing to take the Oath prescribed by 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, from so doing; and, if they are of opinion the House has such right, further to report whether it is competent to the House, under the above circumstances, to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh, by Resolution, from taking the above Oath."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after
    "Select Committee to," and add "inquire into and consider the facts and circumstances under which Mr. Bradlaugh claims to have the Oath prescribed by the 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, administered to him in this House, and also as to the Law applicable to such claim under such circumstances, and as to the right and jurisdiction of this House to refuse to allow the said form of the Oath to be administered to him, and to report thereon to the House, together with their opinion thereon."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman stated that his object in moving this Amendment was to give a wider scope to the inquiry before the Select Committee, so as to enable the House, on the Report of the Committee, to determine the broad question whether Mr. Bradlaugh, in the circumstances under which he sought to be sworn, was entitled to have the Oath put to him at the Table of the House.
    Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment,
    To leave out all the words after the words "Select Committee to," in line 4 of the second paragraph to the end of the said proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "inquire into and consider the facts and circumstances under which Mr. Bradlaugh claims to have the Oath prescribed by the 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, administered to him in this House, and also as to the Law applicable to such claim under such circumstances, and as to the right and jurisdiction of this House to refuse to allow the said form of the Oath to be administered to him, and to

    449
    report thereon to the House, together with their opinion thereon,"—(Mr. Watkin Williams,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the-words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had placed some Amendments on the Paper; but as the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend sufficiently expressed his meaning he would not trouble the House with them.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he thought that the original Motion of the Prime Minister would raise everything suggested by the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. But as the hon. and learned Gentleman thought the words proposed by him would widen the scope of the inquiry, there was no objection on the part of the Government to accept his Amendment. He hoped the House would understand that the Government, in accepting the Amendment, were not in any way falling back from any position they had taken up. They did so simply for the purpose of avoiding any unnecessary prolongation of the debate.
    SIR HENRY TYLERsuggested that after the words "Mr. Bradlaugh claims" in the Amendment there should be inserted the words "after having previously claimed to make an Affirmation;" because without the insertion of those words the Instruction to the Committee would be in the highest sense ambiguous.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, the point raised by the hon. Member was stated quite plainly in the Preamble of the Resolution.
    MR. GORSTobjected to the words "together with their opinion thereon" in the proposed Amendment. If the Attorney General would refer to former cases in which questions of this kind had been dealt with in a Committee, he would find that they reported upon the facts and the law, and did not give their opinion to the House.
    MR. GLADSTONEstated that it was strictly in accordance with precedent to give the Committee power to report its opinion to the House; and, therefore, he thought the words should be retained.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwas informed that the word "adminis-
    450
    ter" was not technically correct; that hon. Members had not the Oath administered to them, but had a right to come up to the Table and take the Oath themselves.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must congratulate the noble Lord on the acumen he had displayed. He thought the words "to take the Oath" were more correct than the words "to have the Oath administered to him." Probably his hon. and learned Friend who had proposed the Amendment would consent to an alteration of it in accordance with the suggestion of the noble Lord.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question,
    "That the words 'inquire into and consider the facts and circumstances under which Mr. Bradlaugh claims to have the Oath prescribed by the 29 and 30 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72, administered to him in this House, and also as to the Law applicable to such claim under such circumstances, and as to the right and jurisdiction of this House to refuse to allow the said form of the Oath to be administered to him, and to report thereon to the House, together with their opinion thereon,' be there added, instead thereof," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the nomination of the Committee, I had thought that the course which would be most acceptable to hon. Members opposite, and most likely to secure the unanimity of the House, would have been to re-appoint the former Committee exactly as it stood—that is to say, the Committee which reported adversely to Mr. Brad-laugh—and in taking that course I felt that I was in some degree compromising the opinions of the majority of the House. Since I came to that conclusion, however, I have learnt from the Opposition Benches that there is a desire on the part of the Members of the Opposition that a change should be made in the names in one or two instances. In order, therefore, to allow Notice to be given of the fresh names, I propose to postpone the Motion for the nomination of the Committee until Thursday next; and I hope that in the meantime such communications may pass between hon. Members opposite and those sitting on these Benches as may insure harmonious action on the part of the House.
    MR. SPENCER WALPOLEinquired whether it had been decided that the hon. Member should or should not be heard by counsel?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I presume that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish for an answer at this moment. We will take the matter into consideration.

MOTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—DISARMAMENT OF THE BASUTOS—SIR BARTLE FRERE.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. E. N. FOWLER,in rising to call attention to the threatened disarmament of the Basutos and other friendly tribes by the Government of the Cape; and to move—
  "That, in the judgment of this House, the policy of the Government of the Cape towards the Native Tribes, and particularly the compulsory disarmament of the Basutos, an eminently loyal people, calls for the early attention of Her Majesty's Government,"
  said, he had read with great satisfaction that it was not the intention of the present Government to retire from the Transvaal, because he believed it would be to the interest of South Africa that the Transvaal should be under the British Crown. Eleven years ago he brought before the House the slavery which, under the name of apprenticeship, existed in the Transvaal, and the atrocities connected with it. His statements wore admitted by the then Colonial Minister (the present Lord Emly), and in the cause of humanity he could conceive nothing more fatal than that we should abandon that country. The Basutos, who were the subject of his Motion to-night, were a tribe resident in the neighbourhood of the Orange Free State, among whom a very devoted band of French Protestant Missionaries had lived, and their efforts had resulted in largely promoting Christianity amongst the people. They were among the most loyal and contented tribes to be found anywhere on the face of the earth. The Natives of the Orange Free State had, however, always been at antagonism with them, and there was constant warfare between the two tribes. Some years ago the Basutos besought Her Majesty to allow them to become subjects of the British
  452
  Crown, and that prayer was assented to by the then Government of which the present Prime Minister was the head. Since that time the Basutos had been always loyal subjects of Her Majesty, and they had manfully stood by us in our recent troubles at the Cape. His object in bringing forward this Motion was to call attention to the action of the present Government at the Cape. He had cordially concurred in the despatch which had been addressed to Sir Bartle Frere by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and he should have been glad had that right hon. Gentleman seen his way to recall him. Not only, however, did the right hon. Gentleman not see his way to take that step, but the distinguished statesman who had succeeded him in Office had also not thought it desirable to recall him. Perhaps there was a good reason for his retention which was obvious to the minds of statesmen, but which was not to be inquired into by an humble individual like himself. Sir Bartle Frere appeared to have acted with great harshness towards the Basutos by ordering them to be suddenly disarmed. This measure of disarmament had been kept hanging over the Basutos for more than a year; and when the Prime Minister at the Cape visited the tribe in October last he promised that they should not be disarmed without their consent. This had been denied, but in language so ambiguous as to imply that all that was meant only was that force would not be resorted to for the purpose of disarming the Basutos in the event of their objecting to give up their arms. It seemed to him to be a very great hardship to deprive of arms a tribe whose members had always stood by us in difficulties, and against whom nothing could be said to show that they had not been perfectly loyal towards us. The idea was, unfortunately, growing up among the Basutos that they were not being treated as White men would be in similar circumstances, and that they were being deprived of their arms simply on account of the colour of their skins. The Basuto Chiefs had petitioned for the stoppage of the disarmament, and urging as an argument in favour of the suspension the loyalty of their people. He earnestly appealed to the Government to take the matter into careful consideration, and

  453
  expressed a hope that they would see their way to grant the prayer of the Petition which the Natives had presented. He was glad to find that the Colonial Office was to be represented in that House by a statesman of the experience of the right hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff), whose happy duty he hoped it would be before long to announce to Parliament the realization of what had for years been the dream of all who take an interest in these subjects—namely, a Federation of the South African Dominions of the Queen. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEY,in seconding the Motion, said, the South African question was a large one, and suggested many painful and regrettable things; but for the present he wished to keep to the question of the Basutos. It must be remembered that the Basutos were in no way conquered, but voluntarily placed themselves under the protection of the British Crown. More than that, having a feud with the Boers, and having placed themselves entirely in the hands of the Queen, they invited Her Majesty to trace the Frontier between their territory and that of the Boers. They acquiesced in an award by which the Frontier was traced disadvantageously to their interests, and they lost much pasture land, pasture land being essential to their prosperity, and even their existence. Those who had followed the history of South Africa would be aware that these rich pasture lands had always been the object of the envy and the coveteousness of the Boers. This country also undertook to check the traffic in arms with the Basutos, with the result that the next time the Boers attacked them the Basutos were at a disadvantage. He mentioned these facts to show that the Basutos were not hostile to us, and that we had nothing to fear from them. They had loyally acquiesced in a position of dependency, not to the Cape Government, but to the Queen, to whom they looked as a protector. He did not think the hon. Member (Mr. E. N. Fowler) had called attention to the fact that not only had the great desire of the Basutos for firearms not been checked, but that it had been stimulated in every way by the Cape Government. It was notorious that not only the Basutos, but all the tribes of South
  454
  Africa, were encouraged to come to the Diamond Fields to work for wages, in the hope that they would secure firearms, which were sold to them at a great profit, and from which traffic the Cape Government derived a great revenue from selling permits to Natives to acquire arms. The hon. Member had 'laid down a proposition far too wide when he suggested that the Basutos should be disarmed. It must be remembered that this was partly a pastoral tribe, and, like all pastoral tribes, was partly a hunting tribe. He did not attach much importance to the necessity of the Basutos having firearms to protect themselves from wild beasts; but he put it merely on the ground that the deer and the other game which they required could be more easily captured by firearms than by other means. The Boers who lived on the other side of the Orange River freely used firearms, and he did not see why we should deal out a different measure of justice to these Basutos, who had never used firearms except for lawful purposes. Nevertheless, the order had gone out that the Basutos should be disarmed. Lord Kimberley had stated that this was the act of the Government of the Colony, and not of the Imperial Government; but there was no intention of interfering with the Colonial Government. Although, nominally, the responsibility was placed on Mr. Sprigg and other Colonial Administrators, the policy was part of that forward policy which the Government of the Cape had been so active in promoting; and it could not be doubted that the personal influence of that Government, which placed the present Premier at the Cape in Office, was an influence which really determined the policy of the Cape Parliament. He, therefore, could not doubt that Her Majesty's Government might, if they chose, see that the old relations with the Basutos should continue. He understood that a proposal was a-foot for taking steps to survey some of the land of the Basutos, and to lay it out with a view to its colonization and expropriation by Europeans. That was a course which lay at the root of many South African troubles. In the case of Zululand, Sir Bartle Frere had attempted to set up a distinction between the political sovereignty of the territory and the territorial ownership. Now, in the case of the country of a tribal and

  455
  pastoral people, it was idle to say that the whole of the land was not in beneficial ownership. The tribes grazed their herds throughout the whole country. And there was no distinction in their minds, and no distinction in fact, between the sovereignty and the ownership. They must all desire that the Basutos would by peaceful means, conciliation, and humane leadership, be induced to go forward in the path of civilization. They were an intelligent and willing people, and there was every hope that they might rise much higher in the scale of civilization. But to do that it was essential that the English Government and the English Sovereign should continue to hold that attitude towards them which had been held in the past. If that were done, he believed the Basutos might be reserved for a better destiny in the future.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the judgment of this House, the policy of the Government of the Cape towards the Native Tribes, and particularly the compulsory disarmament of the Basutos, an eminently loyal people, calls for the early attention of Her Majesty's Government."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not understand, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman who has brought forward this Motion has done so with a view of taking the sense of the House upon it. It has been sometimes my fate to comment upon speeches of the hon. Mover with dissent in the sense of adverse criticism. Today I have great pleasure in complimenting him upon the tone and spirit of his speech. With respect to the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion, I have the gratification of saying that, while he modestly apologized for delivering a speech without possessing fresh information, undoubtedly no one would have discovered the fact from the clearness, ability, and moderation with which he handled the subject. With respect to the question of the Transvaal, touched upon by the Mover, I believe a very severe censure upon Her Majesty's Government was delivered during my temporary absence from the House upon a former evening. I believe that Her Majesty's Government were found guilty by an hon. Member who is not now in his place, and on whom I am not going to make any adverse comment, of most unworthy tergiversation with respect to
  456
  the Transvaal, and that this discredit so charged upon us was founded upon some supposed declaration of mine made in Mid Lothian. But there were no particulars given as to that declaration; and, for my part, I am extremely curious to know what that declaration was, because I am not aware of having made any declaration, in Mid Lothian or elsewhere, that is in the slightest degree inconsistent with the policy now pursued by Her Majesty's Government. I certainly was not one of those who were able to approve the annexation of the Transvaal. One of the consequences of that annexation was to involve us in a very difficult controversy; but I am not aware that I ever signified an opinion, after that annexation had taken place, and after an honourable engagement had been entered into with the Natives of the Transvaal, inconsistent with the policy we are now pursuing. So much for the annexation of the Transvaal, for I will not be tempted into any kind of controversy on the subject until I am informed what the declaration was which I am supposed to have made. With respect to the disarmament of the Basutos, and the kindred question of the Moirosi lands, in every word which has been said as to the character of that tribe, so far as I am able to speak, I entirely con-cur; as I also concur in what has been said as to the policy which should be pursued towards the Natives of South Africa generally, and towards the Basutos in particular. But I would make an observation as to the tone in which the speeches we have just heard were delivered, and as to the limitation of that which has been done which it was in our power to make. It has been asserted that the measure of disarmament was carried out technically by the Colonial Government, but on the responsibility of the Home Government. Undoubtedly that was not so. Wherever a responsible Colonial Ministry exists, it becomes the organ, not technically but really, charged with all the measures, be they right or wrong, prudent or imprudent, which may be taken within its jurisdiction, and the only power that remains to Her Majesty's Government is the power of influence and advice. It will justly be asked that we should use that influence and tender that advice in a spirit conformable to the character of the country; and I think I may say,

  457
  on the part of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that he has done so, and is doing so. My right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State has laid on the Table to-day Papers which, when they are in the hands of hon. Members, will enable them to pass judgment in some degree on what has been done in that direction. In the case of the Moirosi lands, my noble Friend has done that which he has not done in the case of the disarmament. He has distinctly recommended, and as strongly as possible supported, the plea that the step taken should be re-considered with a view to a great alteration in what was proposed to be done. With respect to the disarmament of the Basutos, I would remind hon. Gentlemen of the time at which we were in a position to consider the question. While we were busy in the exciting transactions of the General Election, the Cape Government were busy in giving effect to this measure. On the 6th of April they published a Proclamation under the Peace Preservation Act of 1878 requiring the surrender of arms before the 21st of May—a day which we have now passed, and, so far as we are aware, the operations under that Proclamation must by this time very nearly have reached their culmination. It was not possible, therefore, for us, in point of time, to take any course analogous to that we took in the case of the Moirosi lands, because it was too far advanced to dream of anything like revocation before we were installed in our Offices. It will not, however, be unsatisfactory to my hon. Friends to hear that the measure does not aim at a forcible, or even a general deprivation of the people of arms. It is not to be enforced by domiciliary visits. Its practical purpose is simply to arrive at a state of things in which it shall be no longer the practice to habitually carry arms; and I think it will be seen on all hands that if, by a reasonable use of influence, even by a certain amount of pressure, that can be effected—I do not say it is precisely the measure we should have adopted—it will be a measure very much conducive to the peace and prosperity of Basutoland. Let me add that the measure, as we understand it, will not imply or fairly carry with it a general mistrust in the loyalty of the people; because along with it there is a provision for raising a Native
  458
  Militia Force of Basutos, by which step the Government testify in the most emphatic manner their faith in the loyalty of the people. I hope, therefore, that the just, humane, and wise anxieties which exist on this subject may be mitigated by the facts which I have alluded to. It must be borne in mind that a general disarmament, not alone this particular disarmament, has long been urged upon the Cape Government. I do not speak of what has been done by the late Government as to the merits. I only state the manner in which we found the question, and that the disarmament in question really appears to be of a character favourable to peace and civilization. With regard to Native policy in general, I need not say that one of the great objects with which the late Government, undoubtedly the present Government, wished to prosecute and advance the question of the Confederation of South Africa was with a view to the adoption of a sound Native policy. What we expect is that when a considerable combination of States, filling a larger space in the eye of the world as well as in that of the Government and people of this country, shall have the management of South African affairs, there will be a much keener and effective sense of responsibility applicable to the regulation of Native policy than when the question was handled in a manner merely local, as it were, in the dark, and without the light of public opinion bearing upon it. Having said this much, with some partial satisfaction, I hope, to the Mover of the Resolution, I will refer to the continued tenure of office by an honourable, able, and distinguished man, whose title to those epithets, I think, no one will dispute, and who now fills the important office of Governor and Commissioner, not in South Africa generally, but at the Cape. I am exceedingly desirous that, at any rate, the exact position of the Government with respect to Sir Bartle Frere should be well understood in this House. I am certain that it will be my fault, and not the fault of Members of this House, if I do not succeed in conveying to their minds a clear idea of the position. The hon. Member who has made this Motion has signified that, as far as he can understand, we had adopted the policy of our Predecessors with respect to Sir Bartle Frere. That is the only statement to which I am obliged to

  459
  take exception, as I do not think it quite describes the state of the case.
  MR. E. N. FOWLER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What I said was that Lord Kimberley concurred with my right hon. Friend in the late Government in not recalling Sir Bartle Frere.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Even that would not be a satisfactory description of the course taken; but, without criticizing the language, I will proceed to describe the state of the case. We came into Office, we may say, upon the whole, about a fortnight ago, and undoubtedly one of those urgent and pressing questions which could not be postponed was the question of the position of Sir Bartle Frere in South Africa. I will not go back to the declarations made by Members of the present Government on the subject of Sir Bartle Frere's policy. Suffice it to say, that I myself was one who always thought there was much allowance to be made for Sir Bartle Frere on account of the position in which he found himself when he reached South Africa, and on other accounts which would raise controversial matters. Undoubtedly the admission may be most freely made that Sir Bartle Frere was a Governor of Cape Colony and of South Africa, whose Native policy did not concur with the sentiments which had been generally expressed by my noble and right hon. and other Friends sitting on this side of the House. Our views were in general discord, if I may so say, with the tendencies of Sir Bartle Frere. I make that admission most freely; and consequently I quite admit there was a presumption, fairly to be entertained, adverse to his continuance in office, even for a time, under the present Government. Well, what was it our duty to do coming into the position which we hold? It was to take a survey, as dispassionately and impartially as we could, not simply of the past acts of Sir Bartle Frere, nor of the circumstances in which those acts had been committed, but of the present position of South Africa, and the particular position of Sir Bartle Frere, in regard to measures of policy now pending. We have never, as yet, been called upon to consider—it has not been our duty to consider, it has not legitimately been within our power to consider—the general footing of Sir Bartle Frere as Governor in South Africa,
  460
  and its relation to the principles and ideas of Colonial Government entertained by the present Administration. We have found Sir Bartle Frere in a peculiar position, engaged in the prosecution of an object which is special, which is temporary, and which is all-important. Now let me, in a very few words, explain my meaning of these words. It is a special object, separate altogether from Colonial policy and administration at large. It is the object aimed at by the great measure of Confederation in South Africa. It is, so far as the present question is concerned, altogether a temporary object. Although the business of that Confederation may occupy a long time and pass through many phases, we have to consider it with regard to the present phase. It is in regard to that we have thought it important to look at the question of the continuance of Sir Bartle Frere in office. I cannot too strongly state that, in our view, the question of Confederation in South Africa is all-important. It is quite a different case from the sister measure of Confederation in British North America. That was a great national and Imperial object; it was a great advance made in a country where already Colonial relations had attained something like a normal state, and we could contemplate with satisfaction and pleasure the manner in which they were conducted. That is not the case at the Cape. For 45 years, I can bear personal testimony, our relations with the Cape have never come to a normal state. In 1835 I sat upon a Committee which had to undertake a laborious examination in consequence of the difficulties at the Cape. In 1846 I was succeeded by Lord Grey as Secretary of State for the Colonies; and I remember well stating emphatically to his Lordship that in the whole of our Colonial relations there was but one problem for which it seemed nearly impossible to find a solution, and that was the problem offered by the state of affairs at the Cape. Since that time we have been struggling against a series of difficulties—such as the outbreak of wars, and other abnormal occurrences. The policy of Confederation for South Africa has been launched, whether prematurely I do not undertake to say, and whether it will succeed I do not presume for a moment to pronounce; but it aims at finding a remedy for a state of things so complicated and so unsatisfactory, so

  461
  burdensome and so injurious to the interests of the people. We, as a Government, are not justified in doing anything, or in refraining from doing anything which may bear upon this question in such a way as to damage, in any respect, the chances, be they good or bad, attending this great principle of Confederation. It is so important, it is so large, it so eclipses and absorbs every other consideration in South African policy, looking to the future, that we have considered it to be the polestar of the present action of the Government. Sir Bartle Frere has had charge of that question; in prosecuting it he has had the confidence of the late Government, under Lord Carnarvon and his successor; and we have seen no reason in any respect to distrust the views or proceedings of Sir Bartle Frere in regard to Confederation. The Cape Parliament met on the 7th of this month, and it is the intention of the present Ministry at the Cape to propose in the present Session, lasting till August, a series of Resolutions aiming at a Conference of the Colonies and South African States, with the view of adopting Confederation. It has been said that the presence of Sir Bartle Prere cannot be of importance with regard to this step; but in a country with popular institutions a beginning is half the whole, and I do not think that anyone else would do as well. The influence of this country in one of its Colonies ought never to be used for overbearing public sentiment; but it may be of the greatest importance, efficacy, value, and force in guiding and maturing that public sentiment, in conjunction and harmony with the will of the people. Our opinion was that to have recalled Sir Bartle Frere at the moment when we were entering upon this phase would have had the effect of completely deranging the course of the measures which had been planned and decided upon, and of not giving a fair chance to that great object of policy, a Conference of the States and Colonies, which we have reason to hope will be held about October. If we had sent out some stranger the people would have had to form new relations with him on this important subject. It appeared to us to be a plain duty to do nothing to incur any risk or failure of Confederation. But Confederation is not the only question of importance in South Africa. There are other important questions still more or
  462
  less under the control of Sir Bartle Frere. In regard to Native policy, our duty was to take adequate precaution against the adoption of measures which might be out of harmony with the view entertained by a majority of this House. There is a strip of land external to the Transvaal, known as Keats's Award, and the control of this was the principal matter involving relations with the Natives. Without any disrespect to Sir Bartle Frere, but rather in the development of policy, this land has been placed under the control of Sir George Colley, as belonging geographically to the country over which his jurisdiction will extend. When hon. Gentlemen see the nature of the instructions sent out to South Africa by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, they will, I think, find that, relying on the honour of Sir Bartle Frere, we have taken precautions which will be quite effectual against the possible bias of any events in South Africa which might give cause for dissatisfaction during the short time that must elapse before the adoption of the first step with a view to that Confederation. You will ask if I speak of the Confederation in a definite or an indefinite sense. I speak in a very definite sense; for it will surprise me if, before the close of this short Session, we are not in a position to form a further judgment as to the prospects of Confederation, and as to the position of Sir Bartle Frere in relation thereto. When we can see our own way clearly in regard to the prosecution of that policy of Confederation, then it will be our duty to consider generally and at large our relations to Sir Bartle Frere, and to decide in regard to that great and able man, from whom we have differed so widely, whether we can leave him to be our Representative, and be responsible for his acts in the South African Colonies. That is not in the slightest degree prejudged; and it is on that account that I take partial exception to the remarks of the hon. Member, because, in truth, we have done and said nothing which ties us up to any particular judgment as to the continuance of Sir Bartle Frere in the office of Governor and Commissioner in South Africa, except so far as relates to the important course of procedure which has been fixed and determined on with reference to the initiation of Confederation. Now, as I have pointed to our judgment as to Sir Bartle

  463
  Frere as to the future and not the past, it may be said by some of those who take views the most adverse to him that I ought to intimate that in a short time hence he should be recalled. I cannot agree with that statement. If we said that, the effect would be to entirely discredit his mission and to weaken his hands in such a way that his efforts would be hopeless. It will be our duty to make an impartial, dispassionate, and perfectly unprejudiced examination of that question when the time comes; his case shall be disentangled from the subject of Confederation, so as to enable us to form a judgment on the subject, and, if necessary, to make other arrangements for the prosecution of the policy of Confederation. Having said that what we look to is a careful and unbiassed consideration of the subject when the proper time comes, I may say one other word, because I have heard and read much of the strength of feeling which prevails on the part of many Members of the House with regard to Sir Bartle Frere. And I venture to point out to those Gentlemen that certainly we are not dealing with a man of selfish or sordid character, who would be tempted by the emoluments of office or by want of force of character to acquiesce in anything that would be dishonourable to himself. I believe Sir Bartle Frere to be a very high-minded man, and one who has not only the blessing of strength of character, but who, perhaps, carries that strength of character to excess in the exercise of his own will. Of this I am quite sure—he does not require to be instructed by us on that point; on the contrary, he would be the very first man to act on the feeling that it would be impossible for him to administer the affairs of South Africa in the face of anything like general or widespread mistrust. His sense of honour will, I am sure, teach him that. Therefore, I would say to those who may be eager on this occasion that there is no fear that there will be any disposition on the part of this distinguished gentleman to hold office except under conditions in which he shall feel he possesses the confidence of Parliament; and that whatever may happen, even if the Government should at a future time go astray in their judgment, there is no fear at all that a state of things would prevail in which the distrust and censure of Parliament would be set at naught, and that a Go-
  464
  vernor would remain in that important Dependency to carry on the Government in a manner adverse to the feeling and sense of the House. I think, therefore, there has been an apprehension on the subject beyond what the necessity of the case requires. I hope I have succeeded in showing the profound sense which the Government entertain of the absorbing importance at this moment of the initial measure with regard to the policy of Confederation. Having made up our minds to pursue that course, it would have been exceedingly wrong to accompany it with any proceeding disparaging to Sir Bartle Frere. By such a course we should not have attained one object or the other. The Government have endeavoured to act in the spirit I have described, and I entertain the sanguine hope that they will not be deprived of the approval and confidence of Parliament.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I regret, Sir, very much the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); and in justice to him and to my Colleagues I should wish to say a few words in regard to the observations which have just fallen from the Prime Minister. We feel it is most distinctly our duty to express on this occasion our entire concurrence in the language which the Prime Minister has used with regard to the personal character of Sir Bartle Frere. Everyone who has had the opportunity, as I have had, in other Departments of the State, of seeing the manner in which Sir Bartle Frere conducted the business which was given him to do must, I think, be able to testify to his high-mindedness, his courage, and devotion. No one could fail to recognize in him one of those men who were thoroughly devoted to the Public Service. There was nothing sordid or selfish in his character. At the same time, it is quite within the knowledge of everyone that there have been matters in which it was impossible for the late Government to feel entirely satisfied with all the proceedings of Sir Bartle Frere. We never concealed it from Parliament. We openly stated our reasons for disapproving his conduct in some particulars; but we felt it necessary for the prosecution of the great policy in which he was engaged that he should be retained in his position, and

  465
  in a manner which would enable him to conduct to a successful issue the great operations in which he was concerned. I must say I could have wished that the views now put forward by the Prime Minister had been more appreciated by himself and others who act with him a little time ago. But I do not wish to go back on these matters. I do most sincerely and entirely rejoice that now, at any rate, Her Majesty's Government see the importance of supporting Sir Bartle Frere for the purpose of the great work he has in hand, and which he has had in hand ever since he went out to South Africa. It was with regard to that particular measure that he was sent out with peculiar and unusual powers and responsibilities. He was engaged in that work and conducted it with great ability. The right hon. Gentleman has not overstated its importance, or the zeal and the habitual spirit in which he conducted it. I rejoice to think the right hon. Gentleman has now so far recognized that it is an important matter, and that he ought to be supported in conducting to an end the policy which the Government has committed to his hands. I could have wished that even less had been said in the way of pointing to a future re-consideration of his position. I do not think it well that he should be conducting so important a matter with, as one might say, a rope round his neck. It would be better, if he is to be trusted, that he should be trusted in a way to enable him to carry out what must be a most difficult task. It is perfectly true that the affairs of South Africa have been matters of great delicacy and difficulty for a great many years. For 45 years the right hon. Gentleman has stated he has known them to be cause of anxiety to this country; and now, when we seem to see our way to the accomplishment of the great object we have in view in that part of our Dominions, it is the duty of the Government to support the policy initiated by Sir Bartle Frere.
  Question put, and negatived.

  LAND TITLES AND TRANSFER—LEGISLATION".—RESOLUTION.
  MR. GREGORY,in rising to call attention to the Report of the Committee on Land Titles and Transfer; and to move—
  466
  "That, in the opinion of this House, effect should be given by legislation to the recommendations of that Committee,"
  said, that when land was to be sold under the present system what was called "an abstract of title" had to be prepared, which involved inquiries carried back on an average for 40 years, and was a long, tedious, and expensive process. Having described this process the hon. Gentleman observed that if the land was to be sold once more the purchaser had to go through the same thing all over again. The reason why the process was so expensive was because a great responsibility was thrown on the solicitor of the purchaser, and to absolve himself of that responsibility he had no other course but to investigate the matter from the beginning. The House would understand how great that responsibility was, and how it added so much to the expense, delay, and trouble. He was very much afraid that could never be altogether avoided while the present mode of giving a title continued. Various attempts had been made to facilitate the transfer of land, to simplify titles, and to do away, as far as possible, with the necessity for investigating everything which now existed. So long ago as 1830 or 1832 a Royal Commission was appointed—he believed there never was a better constituted body—which reported in favour of the registration of deeds. But in 1854 another Royal Commission was issued; and they, after investigation, rejected the scheme for the registration of deeds, and recommended a scheme for the registration of titles. It was to be observed that there did not then exist those facilities for the registration either of titles or deeds which were to be found in the Ordnance maps. That Report seemed to have given rise to the Bill of Sir Hugh Cairns, introduced in 1859, which was a scheme for the registration of titles. That Bill, however, was dropped, and in 1862 the Bill of Lord Westbury became law. Under that Bill an office was founded for the registration of land. It was for the registration of indefeasible titles—that was, titles which could be enforced against all comers. Very few titles, however, of that nature existed, very few were without some flaw or defect, though they were practically good. It was also necessary that the boundaries of the property subject

  467
  to registration should be accurately defined, and that involved giving notice to all the adjoining occupiers. The consequence was that every man so noticed was put on his defence, because when you gave notice you challenged the man's title to every boundary adjoining your own. There had been only some 400 transactions under Lord Westbury's Act, notwithstanding the desire of the officers to whom the business had been committed to make the Act work and to give every facility. In 1876 a Bill was brought in by Lord Cairns, removing, to some extent, the defects of Lord Westbury's Act; but the results of this had been again unsatisfactory, and he believed that a system of registration of titles, if voluntary, would be inoperative, and that if compulsory it would be found inconvenient and burdensome. A compulsory system might, perhaps, succeed in a new country; but in England the necessary investigations as to the validity of titles would be so expensive, and at the same time so troublesome, as to cause great repugnance to the working of the Act. However, he thought that a third course might be taken with advantage. The best mode of obviating the difficulty was to register the deeds. If that were done, a copy of every deed executed would be retained in an office and indexed so as to be accessible whenever it was wanted; and such copies would be taken, in the absence of the originals, as evidence of the transactions to which they referred. That would greatly reduce the inconvenience caused by the loss of deeds, and would tend to lessen the law expenses in connection with them, and the present practice of requiring covenants for the production of them, where they could not be handed over to a purchaser. Another practical advantage would result with respect to what was called the doctrine of "tacking," by which a third mortgagee was enabled, by obtaining a transfer of the first mortgage, to get possession of the legal estate and to squeeze out the second mortgagee. The registration of deeds would necessarily be accompanied by a provision that each incumbrance on the estate ranked in its due order. In Scotland the system of registration had prevailed for a long time, and had been found entirely satisfactory. It had called into existence
  468
  a class of practitioners called searchers of deeds, whose work greatly facilitated the purchase and sale of estates in that country. The change that he advocated was very frequently objected to on the score of expense; but he could not admit the force of the argument. An office for each county would be necessary, and the expenses of each office might be estimated at £1,000; but the number of deeds annually made was so great that the cost would be amply covered by very moderate registration fees. The Committee had also recommended the propriety of completing the Ordnance survey, because it was obvious that any system of land registration must be accompanied by good maps. He hoped the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) on this subject would, be acceded to by the Government. He had gone through the recommendations of the Committee, and he hoped they would commend themselves to the attention of the House and the Government. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, in the opinion of this House, effect should be given by legislation to the recommendations of the Committee on Land Titles and Transfer."—(Mr. Gregory.)
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, that the present system of land transfer in England was unsatisfactory both to buyers and sellers. It was attended with two striking disadvantages—first, it was costly; and second, even after the cost had been paid, possession was insecure. It was of importance that this question should be brought prominently before the attention of the public, because land reform interested both the man about to buy and the man about to sell, to whom it would be equally advantageous if at once the transfer of land could be facilitated, cheapened, and possession rendered secure. Under these circumstances, the recommendations of the Select Committee were eminently worthy of the immediate consideration of the Government. That Committee founded their inquiry on a true basis, and were to be commended for having kept in view that the first point to be considered was, how they could arrive at simplicity of title in England, because without that it would be impossible to arrive at a

  469
  simple mode of land transfer. To legislate for the registration of titles, without first simplifying the titles to be registered, was to begin at the wrong end. The number of estates to which land was subject and the difficulty and intricacy in tracing the titles to these estates would, on examination, be found the true solution of the unfortunate miscarriages which, up to the present time, had prevented effect being given to principles which everyone had conceded. Thoroughly bonâ fide attempts had been made by the Legislature to cope with the difficulties of the subject. There was first the Act devised by Lord West-bury. The object of that measure was to render titles in England transferable in the same way as they were in Australia—namely, by having recourse merely to the register. That Act, however, failed to effect the object its framer had in view, and the reason of its failure was that title was not simplified in the first instance. A Royal Commission proceeded to consider Lord Westbury's Act. Many able lawyers sat as Members, and carefully considered how Lord Westbury's Act of 1862 could be re-modelled or amended; and, as the result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, both the late and the present Lord Chancellor entered on the task of coping with the admitted difficulty. The latter brought forward a Bill in 1873, which sought compulsorily to make every person in England place his title on record. That, however, was too drastic a measure. Then, in 1876, a permissive was substituted for the compulsory measure, but again there was failure; and, accordingly, one of the representations contained in the Report of the Select Committee, which had been presented to the House, was that the Act of 1876 had proved an unworkable measure, and which, in the interests of the public, ought not to continue in force. One of the first suggestions made by the Committee was simple as well as valuable—namely, that conveyances should be shortened. Instead of an enormous, cumbersome deed, why should there not be a short conveyance, expressing in a few simple lines what ordinarily filled two very large skins of parchment, the latter being paid for simply according to length, and not according to the skill displayed in the preparation of the deed? In Australia and other Colonies the pur-
  470
  port and effect of an English mortgage was given in three short lines. And yet the interests of both borrower and lender were each as well protected and secured as in England. Why should they place a premium on verbiage by refusing to adopt a similar system of short conveyances? Payment by length should be got rid of, and solicitors should be remunerated, either according to the skill that was necessary for the preparation of the document, or according to some graduated ad valorem scale. If the brief statutory form were substituted for the lengthy deed, its preparation should be rendered compulsory. A similar system had been found efficacious in Scotland, as well as in the Colonies. The two changes to which he had referred, though small, would be of great advantage in arriving at the simplification of titles. Practical effect and validity might be given by Act of Parliament to the suggestion of making mortgages not a conveyance of the property, but simply a charge, defeasible on payment. The opinions given by several skilled witnesses and eminent lawyers showed that to give effect to this recommendation of the Committee no difficulty really existed in regard to practical details. Under the present system, in every simple case of the settlement on marriage of lands in England where lands were granted to trustees for a term of years to raise money for the settlor and also for younger children, and there was also a jointure and a mortgage at least on property in England where there was a mortgage and also a jointure, four distinct sets of titles had to be traced, all the devolutions had to be run through, and there was all the cost of almost endless parchments in respect of the transaction. If the owner of an estate wished to borrow money he might be enabled to do so by a form of deed to this effect—"I charge my estate, describing it, with the repayment to A.B. of the sum borrowed on a day named, with interest thereon half-yearly, after the rate and on the days specified." And on the back of the mortgage deed, when the sum was paid back, there should be a simple indorsement showing that it had been paid back, and then the whole matter would be complete. Great difficulty and expense was occasioned in deducing and proving frequently the title to an estate, from the fact that portions

  471
  there of were held in fee or freehold, and other portions thereof for terms of years and then vested in different persons. It would be most desirable that both freeholds and estates for years should vest in some one ascertained person as administrator. He would be glad, though he did not think the Government could now fairly be called on to give effect to all the recommendations of the Committee, that legislative sanction should this Session be given to some of those suggested changes to which he had alluded. As to the general question of recording titles on an Official Register in England, unless the public be content to have simply the ownership of land registered, and to give the absolute powers of dispute to those named on the Register, he did not think any system could be devised which would work. If that was done, the registered owners could always be easily ascertained, and, as in the case of Stock, the other claims and charges on the land could be transferred to the proceeds when the lands were sold.
  MR. J. HINDE PALMERthought many of the observations which had been made on this subject were entitled to great consideration; but after the answer given last night by the Prime Minister to the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) that it was the intention of the Government, at an early period, to enter into the whole of this subject—not only the transfer of land, but the alterations that should be made in the titles to land—he thought it would be well to leave the question in the hands of the Government to be dealt with by them next Session. Although he agreed in the necessity for a change which would facilitate the transfer of land, that only formed a part of the question. He thought the abolition of primogeniture, by which the landed estate went to the eldest son, to the prejudice of the other children, would be a great advantage to the country. In conjunction with Mr. Locke King, he brought in a Bill abolishing primogeniture, which was adopted by the Government in the Parliament of 1868; but owing to their defeat at the next General Election it was dropped. He hoped it would now form part of the scheme of the Government. It was very much the practice to deal with the Land Question as one of the popular topics of the day which could be treated in a very summary manner; whereas those who
  472
  were conversant with the law and practice with regard to land knew it was a subject which should be dealt with only after very mature deliberation, after calm consideration of its political bearings, and the effect it would have on the social relations of the country. It was impossible to deal with the question merely in reference to legal considerations. It must be dealt with on much broader lines. The late Lord Chancellor introduced three or four Bills which would tend very materially to improve the tenure and transfer of land. They did not go quite so far as he was prepared to go; but they certainly would very much facilitate the transfer of land and cheapen the whole system of conveyancing, which was the great incumbrance in the transfer of land. He hoped these Bills would not escape the careful consideration of the Government. He thought they should not unduly press on the Government measures of this description.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he hoped that any scheme of reform in the Land Laws which might be brought forward would include the abolition of the Law of Primogeniture and some modification of the Law of Entail and Settlement, because under that law land was tied up in such a manner as to render easy transfer impossible, and the proceedings under its provisions were the origin of most of the complications which affected land.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANdesired, as Chairman of the Committee to which the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had referred, to say a few words. That Committee had been appointed to inquire into the Land Transfer Act of 1875, which was an attempt to apply to England the land system which prevailed in Australia. He supposed that in no country in the world would the system of land transfer be found so costly and clumsy as in England, and there were few countries in which the security was less. As a proof of the necessity of some reform in the Land Laws, he might observe, a man had in one case mortgaged the same property 14 times over, to 14 different persons. The authors of the Act of 1875 had endeavoured to embody the Australian system, so far as it could be applied; but there were two things in which Australia differed from this country. First, the laud could be easily identified;

  473
  and, second, the title was clear. Lord Cairns's Act, the object of which was to assimilate, as far as possible, the transfer of land to the transfer of stock and shares, had, notwithstanding the success of a similar Act in Australia, proved a signal failure, the number of titles registered under it being about one in two months, or one in 10,000. Practically, therefore, the Act was a dead letter; and it would be a very strong thing to make that compulsory which only one in 10,000 did of their own accord. The Committee reported, it was true, in favour of a system of registration, not of titles, but of deeds; and nothing had since occurred to change his individual opinion on that point. That Report, however, in no way committed the Government with which he had now the honour to be connected. The question was one of great difficulty, on which even experts disagreed; but it was evident the question must be dealt with in a comprehensive way, and not by piecemeal. He had not had an opportunity of consulting the Lord Chancellor on this matter; but he had no doubt that when the Government, in accordance with the promise given by the Prime Minister on the previous night, came to consider the subject, as they probably would during the coming Recess, they would give it the fullest and most thorough consideration.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, that after the assurance given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Motion.
  COLONEL MAKINSthanked the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) for having brought a question of such importance on so early a date before the House. The Bills introduced by the late Lord Chancellor dealt with the tenure and transfer of land; but the question now before the House, as it seemed to him, related more to title and transfer than to tenure. He felt sure that any measure which had for its object the simplification of the transfer of real property would not tend to the detriment of the members of the Legal Profession, as it was clear that the number of transactions would be considerably multiplied. The time, he hoped, would come when remuneration to conveyancers would be made on the principle of an ad valorem payment on the value of the property assigned. A small instalment of reform
  474
  would be obtained if the system of registration at present existing in Middlesex and Yorkshire were extended to the rest of the Kingdom. Again, a properly authenticated system of maps having the sanction of the Government would greatly simplify questions as to the boundaries of real estates. While in France lately, he had an opportunity of witnessing a transfer of land there. The operation was very simple. A gentleman who desired to add a small portion of land to an estate he already possessed called at an office in connection with the French Government. He paid a small fee—1 franc he (Colonel Makins) thought—and obtained the fullest information respecting the property of which he desired to become the possessor. For a small additional fee of 3½ francs he obtained a certified map, which showed the boundaries of the property. He went to a solicitor, or notary, who also acted, he (Colonel Makins) thought, as a surveyor, as the Government map was held to be correct, and who also acted for both parties. It might be desirable for Her Majesty's Government to take into their consideration whether the professions of solicitor and surveyor, with reference to the transfer of land, should not in some way or other be amalgamated, so as to facilitate the transfer. The gentleman to whom he had referred then employed a solicitor and surveyor, and his fees were on the most moderate scale. He was informed by his adviser of the proper amount he ought to give for this property, and by the solicitor of the time when he ought to get the title registered. Having paid his fees, he had to make up his mind whether he would or would not purchase the property. Having done that, he gave instructions to carry out the purchase; and within six or seven days, he believed, he became the possessor of the property at an amount of cost, excluding the Government ad valorem duty, almost inappreciable. If that system were adopted in this country, it would probably tend very much to that which hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House had so much at heart, the sub-division of landed property in this country. The question of the desirability of sub-division was a very large one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had lately outside the walls of

  475
  that House gone very fully into that question. He believed the right hon. Gentleman's remarks had more special reference to the question of land tenure and peasant proprietorship in the sister country of Ireland.
  MR. GIVANrose to Order, as he thought it premature to discuss that subject at such a moment.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he could not hold that any remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex were irrelevant.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, on many occasions the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham had given views of startling novelty with reference to the question of land tenure. He believed that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, it was desirable that land in Ireland should pass out of the proprietorship of its present owners, whom the right hon. Gentleman described as a small knot of men, into the hands of the present tenants of Ireland, who were a large number. Now, he (Colonel Makins) ventured to think that before any policy of that kind could be carried into execution it would be necessary that several changes in the law, to which he had already referred, should have taken effect; for it was obviously impossible that the present tenants could be in a position that would enable them to purchase any considerable portion of property. Before the dream of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, who was also Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, could be realized, it would be necessary that some measure to reduce the cost of the transfer of land should be passed. Therefore, if hon. Members opposite had this question of peasant proprietorship so deeply at heart as they had declared on the hustings during the last few months, he must exhort them to give this question their deepest consideration. As the House had nothing particular to do that evening, he should like to hear the opinions upon the subject of some of the hon. Members who had only recently obtained seats in it, especially those who came from the sister isle, where this question excited an especial interest. Of course, he felt that, to a certain extent, he was speaking in the dark in reference to it. He had hoped that the House would have had the assistance of the Government on this matter; and he regretted to see that
  476
  the only occupant of the Ministerial Benches was the right hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan). It was, no doubt, desirable that a very large portion of the inhabitants of any country should have a direct and binding interest in the soil of that country; and hitherto such interest had existed in England and Scotland, but rather in the form of a common interest shared by owners and cultivators than in the possession by a large number of proprietors of infinitesimally small plots of land, according to that scheme which had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. The question of the sub-division of land both in England and Ireland was one of great importance—
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Question before the House was not the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham on this subject, but whether the Motion of the hon. Member for East Sussex should or should not be withdrawn.
  COLONEL MAKINSbegged to apologize for having digressed from the subject. He would not pursue the question of sub-division any further. [Ironical cheers.] These cheers showed that hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches had not sufficiently studied the question. In conclusion, he begged to tender his thanks to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire for his speech, and to express a hope that the Government and the House would speedily take the matter under discussion into their earnest consideration.
  MR. BYRNEagreed with hon. Members in thinking this question one of very great importance, and suggested that, as far as registration was concerned, it was not necessary to go further than the Isle of Man, where he had seen many titles which did not cover a larger surface than that of a sheet of note paper; the survey, which had been competently made by authorized persons, being taken as the basis of transfer by all parties concerned. He would suggest, further, that in any measure introduced in reference to the matter facilities for transfer should be combined with a low scale of law charges. He happened to be a proprietor in a small way of some soil in Ireland, and also in

  477
  several English counties, and therefore did not speak on the subject without knowing something about it; and he knew that as low a sum as three guineas had in some instances been paid for a conveyance, whilst in some cases the law charges had amounted to as much as 300 guineas. In Ireland, in many-instances, the charges were fixed at a very high sum indeed. He once knew a small property in the county of Dublin sold in Dublin where the purchase money did not exceed £300, and the law charges came to so large a sum as 15 guineas. He thought the House would agree with him that that was a most excessive charge, considering the amount of the purchase money, though he did not for one moment say that the solicitor who acted in the case charged more than any other gentleman would have charged for similar services. He would also suggest that there was another system of registration on the Statute Book which might be considered in relation to the transfer of land—namely, the registration of shipping. He found that under the Merchant Shipping Act, if a ship was sold, the registration fee was 1s.; and any person wishing to transfer or mortgage the ship by the payment of another shilling, and placing a penny receipt stamp on the document, could get it registered, and that was recognized in any Court in England as a first or second mortgage as the case might be. When the ship was sold that registration was the only record looked to. He did not wish to enter into the various topics which had been raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken (Colonel Makins), but only threw out these suggestions in the hope that they might be of some practical use.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he should not have taken part in this debate—believing it to be one proper to be confined to hon. Members professionally conversant with the subject-matter of it—but for the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. J. Hinde Palmer) had imported a totally different tone into the discussion by bringing in the question of primogeniture. Primogeniture was a long word, very useful for a hustings speech in that its meaning was not generally known, and that it had a sonorous ring; but it should not have been used
  478
  in so vague a way in the House of Commons by so old and experienced a Member as the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln. When he talked of primogeniture he meant real estate intestacy. He had himself more than once led the opposition to the change, and with varying success; and then he well remembered the Attorney General of the day rushing in from one of the Courts and addressing the House in his wig and gown for the purpose of making an impassioned protest against the alteration. That hon. and learned Gentleman was now Lord Chancellor; and until Lord Selborne answered Sir Roundell Palmer he must continue to regard the question as an open one. That being so, what right had the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln to speak on the question as though he were spokesman on behalf of the Government? His speech might be regarded as the little whistling wind which came before the great storm and warned the traveller to wrap his cloak around him. The hon. and learned Member lectured his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex, and the hon. and learned Member who seconded the Motion; and, in effect, asked them how they dared to raise the question when a paternal and beneficent Government were sitting on and hatching it, intending to produce something wonderful next year? As to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Essex's (Colonel Makins's) Algerian experiences, he must point out that there was no profession in France exactly analogous to our solicitor.
  MR. HOPWOODrose to Order.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Question before the House was that the Motion be by leave withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman was entitled to speak on that Question, but was bound to confine himself to the substance of it.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEwould only add to what he had already said, that he could not admit that cheapening land transfer, whatever might be its advantages, would be certain to promote the sub-division of estates; for, as a rule, the broad estate would follow the heavy purse. The poorer proprietor in many cases held on to his land because its transfer was expensive and difficult; if the transfer was made cheap and easy, the temptation put in the way of the

  479
  small proprietor to part with that land would be irresistible.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS.

  MOTION FOR, A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  EARL PERCY,in rising to move for the appointment of a Select Committee
  "To inquire into the number, situation, and condition of the various ancient British, Celtic, Roman, Runic, Danish, or Saxon Monuments in the United Kingdom which are of interest from a scientific, antiquarian, or historical point of view, and to report what legislative measures (if any), are necessary for their preservation,"
  said, that it would be in the recollection of a good many hon. Members that at the commencement of the last Parliament Sir John Lubbock, whom they all very much regretted not seeing among them, and whose return he hoped before long they would all on both sides welcome, introduced a Bill for the Preservation of Ancient Monuments. The measure met with much opposition, for which he (Earl Percy) felt himself to be, in some degree, responsible, its opponents feeling that they had not sufficient information before them to justify legislation on a subject of such importance. Before passing legislation of a novel character, the House ought to have the fullest information as to the number of monuments and the extent of property that would be affected. One proposal of a novel character in the Bill of last Session was that of giving compulsory powers to take property from individuals for other than purely utilitarian purposes. No one on his side of the House would regard too lightly the monuments of the past, or undervalue the historical and antiquarian interests which attached to them; but they were also bound to guard against the thin end of the wedge being inserted in our legislation without full inquiry into the merits of such a question. He was told that measures of a similar kind had been tried in foreign countries, and that the expectations of the promoters had not been realized. Such changes in the Bill of last Session were assented to that opposition was withdrawn; but in the other House the Bill was referred to a Select Committee, and that seemed to show that there was still room for further inquiry. It was felt the rights of way to monuments would have involved an unnecessary
  480
  interference with the enjoyment of property; and that ought, if possible, to be avoided. The name of a right hon. and learned Gentleman on the Treasury Bench (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was on the back of the Bill last year; that right hon. Gentleman, therefore, must be anxious that a Bill should be passed, and he might well consider whether he would not facilitate the attainment of that object by thorough investigation. If there had been inquiry in the first instance, he believed that a measure would have been passed by this time. The Government would have to contribute to the outlay to be incurred; and, therefore, it ought to be proved that the expenditure was to be incurred for an educational, rather than a sentimental purpose. He was rather surprised that more monuments were scheduled in England than in Scotland or Ireland. In the absence from the House of Sir John Lubbock, he believed he was promoting the passing of a measure with which that hon. Gentleman's name was identified. He would readily consent to any verbal alterations in the Motion on the Paper. The noble Earl concluded by moving for the appointment of the Committee of which he had given Notice.
  MR. WHITWELL,in seconding the Motion, said, he did so with the under-standing that its terms should be verbally altered, so as to somewhat enlarge the scope of reference to the Committee. He believed that if the subject were referred to a Select Committee it would be found that several most interesting objects for preservation had dropped out of the notice of those who had prepared the present Schedule. In his opinion, a Select Committee would be the best means for carrying out the object which Sir John Lubbock had in view.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the number, situation, and condition of the various ancient British, Celtic, Roman, Runic, Danish, or Saxon Monuments in the United Kingdom which are of interest from a scientific, antiquarian, or historical point of view, and to report what legislative measures (if any) are necessary for their preservation."—(Earl Percy.)
  MR. ARTHUR PEELopposed the Motion on behalf of the Government. Anyone reading the Motion of the noble Lord, and remembering the course he had taken with reference to the Bill of

  481
  Sir John Lubbock, must feel that the noble Lord would himself be the greatest opponent of such a proposal. The noble Lord who was said by the right hon. Member who sat next to him (Mr. Beresford Hope) to be an obstructor of that Bill, had stated, no later than February last, that, owing to the modifications made in it, his objections were removed; and that, considering the majorities in favour of the Bill, he should withdraw his opposition and allow the Bill to pass. That Bill was originally referred to a Select Committee, and the Schedule which enumerated the monuments to be preserved had been examined by the Royal Society of Antiquaries. He, therefore, could not see what object would be gained by another Committee traversing the same ground. A full inquiry had taken place into the nature of the monuments, and the necessity of preserving them. At all events, it would be better to defer any action till the return of Sir John Lubbock, who would be able to maintain his own Bill.
  MR. BARINGthought the object of the noble Lord, who had always opposed Sir John Lubbock's Bill under one pretext or another, was to forestall the hon. Baronet in reference to this subject. He thought they would do well to wait for a week or a fortnight until Sir John Lubbock, who had bestowed more care and thought on the subject than any person in the House, should once more be among them.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had always objected to the principle of the measure, and would continue to do so. He understood, from the speech of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, that Her Majesty's Government intended to support it. It was right that hon. Gentlemen who were not Members of the late Parliament should know that the Bill was opposed by the then Government on the ground that the measure could not be carried into effect without a very large expenditure of public money, which they, as guardians of the finances of the country, did not conceive themselves entitled to incur. The opinion of the House was against them, and the Bill was carried through the House in spite of their opposition. It was an open question, however, and he ventured to state that the Bill either went too far, or did not go far enough. If a
  482
  Bill on this subject was introduced, it ought to be a whole and entire measure, which dealt with the question in a satisfactory manner. He ventured to say that the most interesting monuments in this country were not included in the Schedule of Sir John Lubbock's Bill. When he addressed the House against the measure, he urged, among other things, that the only perfect specimen of Roman remains, the New Port Gateway at Lincoln, was not included; and Sir John Lubbock's answer was that it was not included because it would cost too much money. What happened when the Bill was referred to a Select Committee? He would not like to use any un-Parliamentary language with regard to the proceedings of that Committee; but they were well described as nothing at all. When it was proposed that evidence should be gone into as to the proper monuments to be included in the Schedule, the Committee by a majority excluded that evidence. That was a sufficient reason why the proposition of his noble Friend should be accepted.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that as his name was on the back of Sir John Lubbock's Bill, he must enter his protest against the course now taken by the noble Lord opposite (Earl Percy). To judge from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), one would have thought that it was a new Bill. But it had been read in the House a second time 11 times, it had been passed by a large majority, and on one occasion was referred to a Select Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that Committee had done nothing at all. He (Mr. Osborne Morgan) was a Member of the Committee, and he begged to differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Committee considered the Bill most carefully, and though it was true they did not take evidence, the reason was because none was wanted. When the Bill was passing through the House every source of information was exhausted, and everything that could be said upon it was said. There was, therefore, in his opinion, no reason whatever why they should accept the Motion before the House. If a Committee were appointed no new information was likely to be received.
  MR. MACARTNET,as one of those who had always opposed the Bill, was

  483
  of opinion that the matter had better be referred to a Select Committee. The measure had been brought forward from the first on the ground that the monuments to be preserved were in actual danger of being destroyed by their owners; but in all the discussions on the subject it had never been stated that any of the monuments, with the exception of Caesar's Camp, ran the least risk of destruction. It would be interesting to know whether, since the first introduction of the Bill, the existence of any of the monuments in the Schedule had ever been imperilled. That consideration alone was a sufficient argument for the appointment of a Select Committee, though there were also other reasons of the most cogent kind. The right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had stated that no evidence had been taken before the former Committee; and, if that were so, he was unable to discover the principles upon which that Committee had formed its opinion. It seemed to him that if they obtained no evidence they might as well never have been appointed. He was not in the least unwilling to see the ancient monuments of the country preserved; indeed, his main objection to the Bill was that, while it would fail to secure its object, it would effectually deprive the owners of ancient monuments of the power of preserving them. The appointment of a Committee would, he believed, economize the time of the House and be the means of procuring indispensable information.
  MR. BREESFORD HOPElooked more favourably upon the intentions of the proposal of his noble Friend (Earl Percy), and treated it as a means of reconciling his present with his former attitude on the subject. He would not, therefore, criticize his noble Friend very severely, but would explain his reasons for not thinking the appointment of a Select Committee desirable. Last Session, the Bill, on which he took a great and direct interest, inasmuch as his name had been continuously on the back of it since its first introduction, had been a source of deep regret to all its supporters; because, after making friends on the Treasury Bench, and after having been read a second time in "another place," it had been referred to a Committee, and might probably have become law, but for a little event that happened in Easter
  484
  week. When Sir John Lubbock returned to the House he believed the present Parliament would be able to give a good account of the measure. The Bill did not involve any dangerous invasion of property. It was, in reality, an ultra-Conservative measure—it sought to preserve monuments even against the ignorant recklessness of an owner. Monuments contained in gentlemen's private grounds and parks were excepted from its operation. It was, perhaps, weak to make that exception, because a person might make ducks and drakes of a very valuable monument if it was on the outskirts of a swampy field with a few alders in it which the man was pleased to call his park. With regard to the Schedule, if they had waited until they had a perfect list of everything in the United Kingdom which ought to be kept, of course, no Bill could ever have been brought in. The list, so to speak, was typical. It was founded on the learning of Sir John Lubbock in a branch of antiquities as to which he stood supreme, probably in England, and certainly in the House of Commons. The Committee on the measure had an Instruction to take evidence, and after considering what their Instruction meant, they came to the decision, which he believed was a just one, that they were not to go as a roving commission over England, but if anybody thought himself aggrieved by the Schedule, he might appear before them and would receive a fair hearing. Mr. Drax, the owner of what was called Caesar's Camp at Wimbledon, claimed to be heard by counsel, and was so heard. His counsel asked what was the use of preserving that to which Mr. Drax had done all the mischief that could be done, and averred that it was not Caesar's Camp, and that no Roman "Caesar" could have been there, because the original Julius Caesar was never there. The Committee said—"Even if any terrible mischief has been done, let it stand in the Schedule as a monument of the necessity for such a Bill, and let it show that Caesar's Camp might have been saved if such a measure had been law some time ago." Both sides of the House, by a conspicuous majority, adopted the Bill, when the Committee brought it up. Later on further modifications were made in it to meet the objections of his noble Friend. For these reasons, he must continue to urge on the

  485
  Government to take the measure in hand. There was nothing in it of a Party question, and he hoped the Government itself would deal with the subject. He did not think that the Committee would be of any service, since the time at its disposal in the present Session was so short. He thought a Royal Commission would be preferable to a Select Committee, because it would be composed of persons better qualified to deal with the subject, and would be able to continue its investigations irrespective of the period of the Session.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, that the question had been before the House for some years, and that he took much interest in it, not only from a public point of view, but from private associations, and he contended that it should be referred to a Select Committee. One reason which perhaps, chiefly influenced him was this—that he was much disappointed to find that the proposal to give a controlling power to a Scotch Board, as well as to the Trustees of the British Museum, had been ignored in the House of Lords, and before the Bill became law he should like to see them inserted.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. COOPEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.')
  MR. BARINGsaid, they had already had a long discussion on this subject. If they were to adjourn then, they would, probably, only have the same discussion on another occasion, and that would be wasting the time of the House. He thought it would be better to give a little more time to the matter, and to finish the discussion that evening. For those reasons he was opposed to the adjournment at that time.
  EARL PERCYsaid, he should be sorry if the House decided to adjourn the debate. He hoped that the line which had been taken by hon. Members upon the other side of the House in endeavouring to stop discussion upon that subject would not be made into a precedent. The debate had been conducted in a perfectly bonâ fide manner. It had not been introduced at any undue length, and had been supported and argued fairly. No doubt, hon. Members upon
  486
  the other side wished to get to another measure; but he trusted that it was not to be laid down in the House in future that a subject which was introduced and discussed in a perfectly bonâ fide manner was not to be listened to.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that if hon. Members opposite were anxious to reach another measure, their object would be better attained by listening patiently to the observations which were made on this subject. In his opinion, the hon. Members who had spoken on this matter had stated their case very fairly; and if they had occupied a long time in doing so it was owing to the interruptions they had met with. If an hon. Member began a sentence, and before he had pronounced three words he was interrupted by cries of "Divide! divide!" of course he took about 20 minutes to say what he would otherwise have said in two. He agreed with the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. Baring) that it would be much better to take a division upon this subject that evening than to postpone it to a future day and again to have a discussion of several hours.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the course taken by hon. Members opposite might suit their present purpose; but it did not add to the dignity of Parliament. The Forms of the House compelled him to employ suppositions, so he would assume, for one moment, that the mantle of Sir John Lubbock had fallen upon some hon. Member upon this side of the House, and a Bill which was only printed that morning was attempted to be passed post-haste, what would be the comments made? Or let them assume that it was any other Bill of more importance than the one he had mentioned, and which excited a great deal of feeling on both sides of the House, would it be right to endeavour to cut its discussion short?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he must request the right hon. Gentleman to confine his observations to the substantive Motion before the House.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, in deference to the Chair, he recurred to the Motion of the noble Earl. It was on a question which had excited much interest, and many Members desired to have this subject fully and fairly discussed. Some hon. Members on the opposite side of the House, for some reasons of their own, had endeavoured

  487
  to cut short a most legitimate, and, so far as this side of the House was concerned, a most good-tempered debate.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 177; Noes, 78: Majority 99. (Div. List No. 6.)
  Debate adjourned till Friday.

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

  APPOINTMENT AND NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Standing Committee be appointed to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms in the Department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House."—(Sir William Dyke.)
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that he should like to know whether he should be in Order in mentioning a matter under the jurisdiction of the Committee, for, otherwise, he must move the adjournment of the House for that purpose?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if the hon. Member desired to make any observations relevant to the subject before the House he would be in Order in doing so.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that for several years past hon. Members of that House had experienced great inconvenience from the limited accommodation provided for smoking. The custom of smoking was pretty universal; but the space allotted for that purpose in the House was very restricted. If it were entirely devoted to the use of hon. Members it might be sufficient; but hon. Members were allowed to bring their friends into the room, and it frequently occurred that one hon. Member had as many as four or five friends with him, and then, if six or seven hon. Members were present, it was all the room could accommodate.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he rose to Order. He wished to ask whether the allocation of the rooms in that building was not a matter totally distinct from the functions of the Committee?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) was entitled to address the House upon the question which he brought forward.
  488
  The observations which he was making, however, were not quite relevant to the question, and he must ask him to confine himself to the subject actually before the House.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that he believed the Committee was appointed to superintend the refreshments of the House, and refreshments were taken in the Smoking Room, sometimes of a very stimulating kind. What he wished to say was that if the Committee directed their attention to this matter it would be a great advantage to hon. Members of that House.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that he had gathered from the ruling of Mr. Speaker that the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Macartney) were not out of Order. He would wish to support what he had stated with regard to the serious want of adequate accommodation both for hon. Members and their friends in the Smoking Room downstairs. He himself had been debarred from making use of the Smoking Room solely in consequence of the crowded state in which he repeatedly found it. It was crowded, not with hon. Members, for whose use he imagined it was intended, but crowded by strangers, friends, probably, of hon. Members, and properly introduced into that portion of the building. But their presence in the Smoking Room rendered it quite impossible for hon. Members to discuss, as they might desire to do whilst taking refreshment, questions which might afterwards arise in debate in that House. It must be apparent to hon. Members how exceedingly difficult it was for them to go downstairs into the Smoking Room, and to confer upon questions which would afterwards arise in debate, in the presence of strangers whose interest in the subjects, through their not being Members of the House, it was difficult adequately to estimate. That was one question which would arise for the consideration of the Committee. But there was another question which, he took it, came entirely within the terms of Reference, and that was the quality of the articles supplied for the use of hon. Members in the Smoking Room. He was not to be nominated a Member of that Committee; and, therefore, he should not have an opportunity of laying his views on the subject before them. The present was the only occasion which

  489
  he could take of doing so. The complaints with regard to the quality of the articles supplied in the Smoking Room were numerous, and he thought well founded. There was also another complaint with reference to the question of attendance. It frequently happened that those who had ordered some light refreshment such as tea and coffee in the Smoking Room had to wait eight, ten, or fifteen minutes before they were supplied with the beverage which they required. He was not going to conclude with a Motion; but as that was the only occasion on which he could bring the matter before the Committee, he hoped that hon. Members opposite would not grudge him a few minutes for the discussion of a question of such vital importance to the comfort of hon. Members. There was also another point to which he wished to call attention. He wished to point out that the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Kent, who appeared as one of those proposed for the Committee, was not actually stated.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Motion before the House was as to the appointment of the Committee, and not as to the hon. Members who should compose it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Standing Committee appointed, "to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House:"—Mr. ADAM, Sir EDMUND FILMER, Sir WILLIAM DYKE, Mr. EDWARDS, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Sir ARTHUR HAYTER, Lord KENSINGTON, Mr. MUNTZ, Mr. RICHARD POWER, Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, Sir HENRY WOLFF, Lord HENRY THYNNE, and Mr. MONK:—Five to be the quorum.

  FISHING VESSELS (REGULATIONS AS TO LIGHTS).
  Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the objections urged by persons connected with fishing industries against the new Regulations as to Lights for Fishing Vessels."—(Mr. Ashley.)
  And, on June 1, Committee nominated as follows:—Lord ELCHO, Mr. BIRKBECK, Mr. MURRAY, Earl PERCY, Mr. NORWOOD, Sir EDWARD WATKIN, Sir JOHN ST. AUBYN, Mr. JOSEPH PEASE, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. WALTER JAMES, and Mr. ASHLEY:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Select Committee appointed, "to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House,
  490
  with the exception of such as relate to Private Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth the number of signatures to each Petition only in respect to those signatures to which addresses are affixed:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House:"—Sir CHARLES FORSTER, The O'DONOGHUE, Mr. O'CONOR, Mr. M'LAGAN, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Mr. REGINALD YORKE, Sir CHARLES RUSSELL, Viscount NEWPORT, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Marquess of TAVISTOCK, Mr. CHARLES TENNANT, Marquess of STAFFORD, Mr. HANBURY-TRACY, Mr. LOWTHER, and Colonel DIGBY:—Three to be the quorum.—(Sir Charles Forster.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (EASTBOURNE, &c.) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government District of Eastbourne, the Improvement Act District of Herne Bay, the Local Government Districts of Northwich and Pudsey, the Improvement Act District of Ramsgate, and the Local Government District of West Ham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 189.]

  SAVINGS BANKS BILL.
  Resolutions [May 24] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. FAWCETT, and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
  Bill. presented, and read the first time. [Bill 188.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock till Thursday.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several Lords.
SESSIONAL COMMITTEES—Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, Standing Orders Committee on Private Bills, Committee, of
426
Selection on Opposed Private Bills, appointed and nominated.
SELECT' COMMITTEE—Reporting, appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILL—Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ban-bridge, &c.)*(66), and passed.

ROLL OF THE LORDS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had prepared and laid it on the Table: The same was ordered to be printed. (No. 72.)
NEW PEER.
Sir Arthur Edward Guinness, Baronet, having been created Baron Ardilaun of Ashford in the county of Galway—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE PARLIAMENTS AND OFFICE OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD.
Select Committee appointed: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

Ld. Chancellor.

E. Carnarvon.

Ld. President.

E. Bradford.

Ld. Privy Seal.

E. Granville.

D. Richmond.

E. Kimberley.

D. Saint Albans.

E. Redesdale.

M. Lansdowne.

V. Hawarden.

M. Salisbury.

V. Hardinge.

M. Bath.

V. Eversley.

M. Hertford.

L. Colville of Culross

Ld. Steward.

L. Monson.

E. Devon.

L. Colchester.

E. Doncaster.

L. Skelmersdale,

E. Tankerville.

L. Aveland.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Orders Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:

D. Somerset.

V. Eversley.

M. Winchester.

V. Halifax.

M. Lansdowne.

L. Camoys.

M. Bath.

L. Saye and Sele.

M. Hertford.

L. Balfour of Burleigh.

Ld. Steward.

L. Colville of Culross.

E. Devon.

L. Boyle.

E. Airlie.

L. Monson.

E. Carnarvon.

L. Digby.

E. Cadogan.

L. Colchester.

E. Belmore.

L. Silchester.

E. Chichester.

L. De Tabley.

E. Powis.

L. Skelmersdale.

E. Verulam.

L. Sudeley.

E. Morley.

L. Belper.

E. Stradbroke.

L. Ebury.

E. Amherst.

L. Egerton.

V. Hawarden.

L. Hartismere.

V. Hutchinson.

L. Penrhyn.

V, Hardinge.

L. Wolverton,

PRIVATE BILLS.
All petitions relating to Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Standing Orders Committee, unless otherwise ordered.

OPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS.
The Lords following; viz.,

M. Lansdowne.

L. Boyle.

L. Colville of Culross.

L. Skelmersdale.

were appointed, with the Chairman of Committees, a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

REPORTING.
Moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of reporting in this House.—(The Lord Boyle.)
Motion agreed to.
The Lords following were named of the Committee:

M. Bath.

L. De L'Isle and Dudley.

E. Stanhope.

E. Beauchamp.

L. Sudeley.

E. Camperdown.

L. St. Leonards.

L. Lovel and Holland.

L. Houghton.

L. Kenry.

The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.