Sitting of 27 May 1880

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For London University, v. Right hon. Robert Lowe, now Viscount Sherbrooke, called up to the House of Peers.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Eight hon. Sir William George Grenville Venables Vernon Harcourt, for Derby Borough; Eight hon. William Patrick Adam, for Clackmannan and Kinross; Lieutenant Colonel the hon. William Henry Peregrine Carington, for Chipping Wycombe.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Printing, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class II., SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS, Votes 1 to 16.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Hares and Eabbit8 [194]; Agricultural Holdings Act Amendment*[190]; Parliamentary Elections*[191]; Bankruptcy Law Amendment*[192]; Gun Licence Act (1870) Amendment*[193].
Committee—Report—Public Works Loans*[171].
Withdrawn—Partnerships*[164].

QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AMERICA—THE WAR BETWEEN CHILI AND PERU.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the very serious loss of life and destruction to property caused by the war between Chili and Peru, and if Her Majesty's Government, especially as British interests are deeply involved, have considered whether it would be advisable by an offer of arbitration or friendly mediation to make at least an attempt to bring the conflict to a close?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the injury occasioned to trade by the continuance of the unfortunate war now pending between Chili and Peru; and they would be glad, both on that and other grounds, to see it brought to a speedy conclusion. Such friendly overtures as they have hitherto been able to make with this object have, I regret to say, been ineffectual; but they have already been, and are still, in communication with other Powers on the subject, and should any favourable opportunity occur of offering their friendly mediation with any probability of success they will not fail to take advantage of it.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND)—CODE OF REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 69.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Council will so far modify the instruction contained in Article 69 of the Code of Regulations for Scotland as to allow the school teachers whose certificates it is proposed to suspend to send an explanation of their conduct direct to the Department?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I think it is desirable, in reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Alexander Gordon), to state what has of late years been the practice of the Education Department with respect to this painful and difficult class of cases. When either the Report of the Inspector or the certificate of the managers shows anything seriously wrong, we write to the managers, setting out what appears to call for explanation, requesting that this may be

  517
  communicated to the teacher, and that such statement as the teacher wishes to submit in reply may be forwarded to the Department with the remarks of the managers thereon. We do not communicate with the teacher personally, because we have no direct official relations with him; we know him only as being in the employ of the managers. By proceeding as we do we save an interminable amount of copying letters for transmission to and fro between the managers, Inspector, and teacher before the case is decided. Every case which appears to call for serious notice is referred to the Vice President, who has before him, when deciding it, the Inspector's Report, the managers' certificate and statements, the statement of the teacher's defence, and the comments of three superior officers of the Department—namely, two Examiners (one at least a senior)and an Assistant Secretary, and in cases where questions as to registration are at issue, a special Report by an expert in such matters. There has been no case for some years past of cancelling or suspending a certificate of a teacher, except after a careful investigation and consideration by the Vice President himself; and I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that, in a matter so vitally affecting the teacher, I shall endeavour to be as careful as my Predecessors, and I shall give the teacher the fullest opportunity of stating his case.

  THE LAND QUESTION (IRELAND).
  MR. VILLIERS-STUARTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he is in a position to state that increased security of tenure, protection against confiscation of tenant's improvements, and discouragement of rack-rents will have a place in any measure on the Irish Land question which Her Majesty's Government may hereafter introduce?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I am very sorry that it would be impossible for me to give an answer to the Question of my hon. Friend. It would be impossible for me now to state what provisions will or will not appear in any measure we may hereafter lay before the House; but I can assure him the Land Question in all its branches is receiving the closest attention of the Government, and will especially receive my own attention between now and the next Session.

  THE MEDICAL ACTS—RE-APPOINTMENT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he will move the reappointment of the Select Committee on the Medical Acts, in order that the inquiry into Medical Education and Registration may be continued?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Committee appointed during the last Session was not, as stated in the Question, to inquire into the Medical Acts, but to inquire into and report upon three Bills, one of which was a Government Bill, which was then before Parliament, for the amendment of those Acts. The Government do not propose to introduce any Bill for dealing with this important question during the present short Session, but will take the whole subject into consideration before the meeting of Parliament next year. A Committee on the subject cannot be appointed at present.

  SPAIN—SULIT AND BORNEO.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can inform the House of the result of the recent negotiations between Her Majesty and the King of Spain concerning the claims advanced by Spain to the northern portion of Borneo; whether he has considered the geographical importance of the territory in question, and especially of the harbour of Gaya, and how inconvenient it would be for us if they were occupied by any other Power; and, whether he is prepared in consequence to favour the projects of certain British subjects for founding a settlement in that country, and to grant them a charter for the purpose; and, if he can lay upon the Table the Correspondence and Papers on these questions?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, under instructions from Her Majesty's Government, has, on more than one occasion, protested in the most explicit terms against the claim of the Spanish Government to exercise sovereignty over the Sulu Archipelago or any part of the Island of Borneo; but the negotiations on the subject have not yet been brought to a conclusion. Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the importance

  519
  of the territory in question, and especially of the harbour of Gaya, to which the hon. Member has referred, and they will continue to give the whole subject their most attentive consideration. The question of the grant of a Charter for founding a settlement in the country was under the consideration of the late Government for a very long period; but they were unable to come to any conclusion before leaving Office. My noble Friend Lord Granville is, however, engaged in examining the Correspondence, which is of a very voluminous character, and I hope shortly to be able to announce his decision on the subject. But the question has hardly reached a stage at which it would be convenient to lay any of the Correspondence before Parliament.

  POST OFFICE, EXETER—THE TELEGRAPHIC DEPARTMENT.
  MR. H. NORTHCOTEasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to the great increase of work which has been imposed during the past nine years upon the telegraphic staff of the Exeter Post Office; if he is aware that, notwithstanding this great increase in their duties, many of the senior officers in this office have received no increase of salary since 1871; and if, under these circumstances, he will take steps to improve the position of these officers, either by recommending the classification of the Exeter Post Office henceforth as an office of the Second Class, or by a direct amelioration of the pecuniary position of its senior subordinate officers?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that until he saw the hon. Member's Question his attention had not been called to the state of things referred to. But he had made inquiries on the subject, and found that there had been no increase of work during the last nine years, or, at least, no such increase as had occurred in such large places as Manchester and Glasgow. As to there having been no increase of pay, that arose from the fact that when the Department was created there was a great increase in the number of servants, most of whom were of nearly the same age, from which had arisen a block against promotion. Moreover, he was sorry to say that the difficulty was not to find suitable persons for employment, but to find sufficient employment for well-qualified persons.

  THE GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA—THE MARQUESS OF RIPON.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any foundation for the rumours mentioned in the "Globe" newspaper of Friday, May 21st, to the effect that the new Governor General of India is a member of the Jesuit Order?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I know nothing of the rumour to which the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) alludes; and perhaps I may venture, with great respect, to express an opinion that mere rumours mentioned without any evidence of authority are hardly sufficient basis for a Question of this kind. However, as the hon. Member has put the Question, it was my duty to make inquiries on the subject; and I was informed, as I certainly anticipated would be the case, that Lord Ripon was not a member of the Order of Jesus. I am further informed by those nearest to him that, so far as their information goes, it is impossible that he should become so, for the simple reason that he does not possess the necessary qualifications.

  THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the crowded and uncomfortable condition of the House, especially on the right of the Speaker's Chair, the Government will consider the propriety of now carrying out the recommendations of the Committee of 1868, which reported that—
  "An increase of accommodation for Members can be obtained in the most satisfactory manner, and without involving any interruption of the Proceedings of the House, by the erection of a new Chamber in the Commons Court?"
  With the permission of the House, he would further say that in order to ask the Question from the body of the House he had borrowed a seat from an hon. Gentleman who was now sitting on the floor. That was not surprising, seeing that the body of the House contained accommodation for 306 Members, and there were 360 who wished to sit on that side of the House alone.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I must admit the pathetic circumstances under

  521
  which, the hon. Member has put this Question, and the very skilful manner in which he has presented it to us. I also regret the great inconvenience which I know many hon. Members are suffering; but, at the same time, I think it would be a great mistake if we were, on account of that inconvenience, to be led hastily to make changes of an important character involving great structural alterations in this vast edifice, changes involving expense, and perhaps other consequences with regard to the convenience of Members which it would not be easy to measure. I would, therefore, venture to express a hope that it may be now, at all events, at this first stage of the matter, as it was in 1868–9. At that time there was a great deal of the same kind of inconvenience encountered. In fact, it was very nearly, as to the way in which Parties were divided in regard to their seats, the same case we have now, and there was a good deal said at the time. These are, of course, questions of convenience; but I would venture to recommend that a little more time should be allowed. At present the great curiosity and natural interest of an extraordinarily large number of new Members leads them in a remarkable and unusual degree to resort to this House. But from day to day they become better acquainted with the necessities of the case; and undoubtedly I think it would be premature, to say the least of it, to arrive at any conclusion as important as that which is contained in the Question of my hon. Friend.

RUSSIA AND CHINA—THE KULDJA

  QUESTION.
  MR. JAMESasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information with respect to the present state of the difficulties on the Kuldja question between the Russian and the Chinese Governments?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, according to the latest information we have received from Pekin, the Chinese Government intended to send an Envoy to St. Petersburg to propose that the Treaty concluded by the Chinese Ambassador, Chung How, should be cancelled, and that things should remain in statu quo. We have no information that would cause us to know whether the Russian
  522
  Government will agree to this proposal, and we have no authentic information as to the reported movements of troops on the part of China or Russia.

  ALKALI ACTS—LEGISLATION.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he proposes, during the present Session, to introduce a Bill to amend and extend the Alkali Acts, or to carry out any of the recommendations of the Noxious Vapours Commission?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, that, although the time had been very short, he had had, and still had, the Report of the Commission under his consideration. He was aware that the subject was important, and he was desirous of giving it every attention. Whether they would be able to deal with it that Session would depend on the progress of Public Business.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE LONDON SCHOOL BOARD—ORGANIZED INSTRUCTION OF PUPIL TEACHERS.
  MR. B. SAMUELSONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the London School Board has renewed its request to be allowed to organise united instruction of its pupil teachers by the most competent certificated masters in each subject, with the object of rendering the instruction more efficient; whether such grouping is permissible under the Education Acts; and, whether the request of the London School Board will be granted?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the London School Board has renewed its request to be allowed to take the step mentioned in the Question of my hon. Friend. Such grouping is not forbidden by the Education Acts; but it is not permissible under the Code of 1879. The request of the London School Board is at present under the consideration of the Department; and I hope in a few days, when the new Code has been laid on the Table, words will have been introduced which will admit of this experiment being fairly tried. At Liverpool, where the Catholic schools and the School Board have been enabled by private liberality to try it, the results have been eminently satisfactory.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY—EXTENSION OF HOURS OF ADMISSION.
  MR. COOPEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is prepared to take steps to extend the hours for the admission of the public to the National Gallery during the Summer months, and in accordance with the practice in Continental Galleries, on such days as have been heretofore confined to students; to admit students to copy on the six days of the week, and to make such arrangements for the cleaning of the Gallery as shall obviate the necessity of its being closed for five weeks in the Autumn; and, further, whether he will take measures for the extension of the buildings, either as designed by Mr. Barry or otherwise, in order to provide for the reception, as well of Works of Art already possessed by the Nation, as of such others as may be added to the National Collection by purchase, gift, or bequest?
  MR. ADAM,in reply, said, that the First Commissioner of Works was not responsible, and could not make regulations for changing the rules already in existence. That power resided in the Trustees. He did not think that any complaint had ever yet been made as to the early hours of closing during the summer. He was informed, however, that the question would be considered by the Trustees, and that the real difficulty had reference to the limited staff placed at their disposal. No objection had been made by the public to the surrender of the Gallery for certain days in the week to students; and even on reserve days foreigners, artists, persons not residing in London, and all Members of Parliament were admitted. Large numbers of fresh applications had been made by artists, and the consequence was that the Gallery was crowded even on reserve days; so that if the public were admitted they would experience great difficulty of seeing the best pictures, and great danger to the latter might arise. This inconvenience was well known in foreign Galleries; and he did not think these were open, as a rule, so many hours as the National Gallery was. As regarded the closing of the Gallery altogether for five weeks in the year, October had been chosen as the most convenient month for cleansing it; and it should be borne
  524
  in mind that some leave of absence had to be granted to the staff. That, however, was a question for the Trustees, who did not desire that the Gallery should be closed more than was necessary. As to the extension of the building itself, it was one for financial consideration. At present it was not possible for the Government to give any undertaking as to what might be done.
  MR. COOPEintimated that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer just given, he would take the earliest opportunity of bringing the matter before the notice of the House.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—THE MAIL STEAMER "PARA."
  ADMIRAL EGERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to institute any inquiry into the circumstances attending the disaster which recently occurred to the Royal Mail Steamer "Para," and the manner in which her passengers' safety was or was not provided for on her voyage home from the Azores, whence it is stated that she was towed in a disabled state?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the breakdown of the machinery of the Para is, as I am informed, not in itself a subject which demands official inquiry by order of the Board of Trade. The case will be reported in due course by the Engineering Staff of the Department. As regards her passage home from the Azores in tow of a steamtug, she arrived safely; and the Board of Trade have no power to order inquiry into the means adopted by the Company for bringing home the ship or the passengers. I am bound, however, to say the Company do not appear to have shown as much consideration as usual for the comfort and the safety of their passengers.

BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—DRAIN.

  AGE OF THE UPPER SHANNON.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the works for the Drainage of the Upper Shannon, especially at Taghmon, for which the Estimates have already been passed, have as yet been begun; and, if not, whether he will consider the importance of proceeding with them at

  525
  once, so as to guard against further floods?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I may say that the works authorized for the drainage of the Upper Shannon are now only being proceeded with at one point—Meelick—where a new cut in the line of the old is being excavated. The works proposed at the other points consist in the insertion of sluices into the weirs, seven in number. The plans and specifications for those sluices have now been completed, and tenders for their construction will very shortly be called for. Every effort will be made to expedite the works; but prudence requires that they should be commenced at the lower end of the district, and carried out consecutively upwards.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL PENSIONS.
  MR. TREVELYANasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that, by the operation of recent orders, the Greenwich Hospital pensions, given in lieu of the benefits of the hospital, have been limited, wholly or in part, to men who consent to join the Naval Reserve; whether they have been, wholly or in part, withdrawn from the men whose good conduct and ability have been proved by their obtaining service pensions of a certain amount; and, whether a discretionary power of allotting or withholding these pensions, not contemplated when the hospital was abolished, has been assumed by recent orders; and, if so, what is the date of those orders?
  MR. T. BRASSEY: Sir, the age pensions are given quite irrespective of any proviso that the recipients should join the Naval Reserve. But men who enter the Pensioner Reserve are allowed the privilege of receiving these pensions at 50 instead of 55 years of age, provided that they have completed the necessary drills. No pensioner is awarded the age pension at 55 years of age, if he is already in the receipt of a Government pension of 2s. 6d. a-day and upwards. At the present time every eligible pensioner above the age of 55 will receive the age pension, except those who are already in the receipt of a pension of 2s. 6d. a-day and those who are wholly able to contribute to their own support. I would
  526
  remind my hon. Friend that the Greenwich Funds are not unlimited, and that every effort is made to distribute them among the most necessitous and most deserving.

  METROPOLIS VALUATION ACT, 1869—LEGISLATION.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, seeing that the Metropolis, in comparison with all England, has been and is exceptionally overcharged in its assessment under "The Metropolis Valuation Act, 1869," and that this overcharge of about 11 per cent, is aggravated by the Queen's Taxes being levied, not like local rates upon the net, but upon the gross assessment, he will, at the earliest period, introduce a general Valuation Bill to remedy the defects of the present administration?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, the Metropolis being fully assessed under the Metropolis Valuation Act, may suffer in its contributions to the county rates if the Valuation Lists be adopted as the basis [for the county rate outside the Metropolis. He was not prepared to acquiesce in the statement involved in the Question that the assessment in the Metropolis exceeded that in other parts of the country to the extent mentioned. As to the Queen's Taxes, they were levied upon a uniform basis throughout the country. Bills for settling the question of valuation had been before the House for 13 years, and although that was not a very encouraging circumstance, he was anxious to deal with the subject at the earliest practicable moment; but there were other questions to be considered in connection with it.

  THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—CONSULS IN CENTRAL AFRICA.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps with a view to the appointment of an officer to give protection to and to control traders, missionaries, and others, Her Majesty's subjects, in the countries bordering on Lakes Nyassa and Tanganyika in Africa?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the districts to which the Question of the

  527
  hon. Gentleman refers are very far inland, and are also districts in which there is no great Chief of much power to whom Representatives of Her Majesty could be accredited, that statement being subject to limitation only as regards the case of Uganda. It would, therefore, be impossible for the Government to support the authority of any Consuls who might be appointed to these districts, or even to protect their persons from attacks made against them by Native Chiefs; and great difficulty might therefore occur in the event of any Consul being murdered or imprisoned by the Native Chiefs. Looking, therefore, to the difficulties likely to arise from such appointments, Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to recommend them generally; but, whenever it is practicable, they will be ready to take steps to maintain communication with, and exercise such control as is possible over, traders and missionaries in the interior. I may mention that Dr. Kirk, Her Majesty's Consul General at Zanzibar, has recently been instructed to recognize Mr. Hare, of the London Missionary Society's Mission on Lake Tanganyika, as the official channel of communication with Ujiji, and, if necessary, to appoint him Consular Agent.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—LEGAL BUSINESS—THE ELECTION PETITIONS.
  MR. MARRIOTTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether Her Majesty's Government, having regard to the fact that six of Her Majesty's judges have been appointed to try Election Petitions during the months of June and July, and that there are at the present time 674 causes standing for trial at Westminster, intend to propose any, and, if any, what measures, for the purpose of facilitating the despatch of legal business in the Metropolis between the present time and the Long Vacation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)in reply, said, it was true that at the present time 674 causes were standing in the Nisi Prius list for trial at Westminster; but many of them were merely put there formally, and were never intended to go to trial. On the other hand, the arrears of judicial business in banc were unusually light. Six Election Judges would for a time be absent from Westminster; but it was
  528
  hoped that by the commencement of July four would be able to return, and that two would be sufficient to try the remaining Election Petitions. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government were not aware of any measures that could be taken to facilitate the despatch of legal business, except by the appointment of fresh Judges,—a course which should not be taken except in case of extreme necessity, of which there was no evidence at the present time.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS ACT—LEGISLATION.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government will introduce a Bill to amend the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL,in reply, said, that the Act of last Session made provision for the continuance of the Corrupt Practices at Elections Act, and the Acts- relating to Election Petitions, till December 31, 1881. Therefore there would be ample time for the discussion of the subject, and it would be useful to gain the experience which might be derived in the meantime from the results of the numerous Election Petitions now pending.

  POST OFFICE—EXTENSION OF POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will give his early attention to the subject of the extension of the system of Post Office Savings Banks, especially in the rural districts?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, this very important subject was receiving his most careful attention.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND) ACT—NEWCASTLE PRISON.
  MR. ASHTON DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any intention of removing the prison of Newcastle upon Tyne; and, if so, whether due attention will be paid to the wishes and opinions of the authorities and inhabitants of Newcastle on the subject?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL,in reply, said, that the question of the removal of the

  529
  prison of Newcastle-upon-Tyne was now under the consideration of the Secretary of State. Any representation from the authorities of the town or other persons interested in the matter would receive the most careful consideration.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1876—"UN-SEAWORTHY SHIPS—THE "MARLBOROUGH" OF HULL.
  MR. BURTasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the circumstances connected with the loss of the S.S. "Marlborough," of Hull, whilst on a voyage from Cardiff to Genoa with a cargo of coals; if it is a fact that the Court, consisting of Mr. Rothery, Wreck Commissioner, assisted by Captain Ronaldson, Captain Ward, and Mr. Merrifield, assessors, after a careful investigation, decided as follows:—that the load-line was not in a proper position on the ship's side; that when the ship left on her last voyage she was over-laden; that she was not properly or sufficiently manned; that she was overladen with the knowledge and sanction of the managing owner; that she was undermanned with the knowledge and sanction of the managing owner; whether it is true that the commissioner and assessors declared that the conduct of the managing owner had been
  "So reckless in sending the vessel to sea in so unseaworthy a condition that he ought to he condemned in costs,"
  and if they accordingly condemned him in a sum of £250; and, whether, if these circumstances are accurately reported, any steps can be taken to obtain compensation for the families and relatives of the captain and crew of the ship?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, my attention has been called to the subject, and the facts are, I am sorry to say, such as are stated in the Question. I am not prepared to express any further opinion on the matter now, because the whole subject is under consideration with a view to see whether ulterior and criminal proceedings may not be necessary. With regard to civil liability, I have to state that the Legislature has by Section 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, created an express statutory obligation between the shipowner and his crow, notwithstanding any agreement to the
  530
  contrary, that all reasonable means shall be used, not only by himself, but by the master and every agent charged with the loading, or preparing, or sending the vessel to sea, to make and keep her seaworthy throughout the voyage. The only means by which a shipowner can discharge himself of liability is by proving that he did so, or that, owing to special circumstances, the sending her to sea in an unseaworthy state was reasonable and justifiable. A remedy does now, therefore, exist whereby the family of a shipwrecked master and crew may, in certain cases, recover compensation from the shipowner. It would not be proper to express an opinion whether, applying the law to the particular case mentioned in the Question, the liability of the shipowner can be established.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—BREACH OF CONTRACT BY SEAMEN.
  MR. BURTasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session to abolish imprisonment for breach of contract by seamen?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the subject to which the hon. Member refers is under the consideration of the Government. It will not be possible to deal with the matter during the present Session; but I trust that it may be dealt with next Session.

  GRAND JURY SYSTEM (IRELAND).
  MR. GIVANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce during the present Session a Bill to alter the Grand Jury system in Ireland, and give representation to cesspayers in the transaction of fiscal Business?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am afraid I must say we cannot undertake to bring forward this Session any Bill to alter the Grand Jury system in Ireland. The subject of county government is fully of as much importance in Ireland as in England; but I think the hon. Member will see, on consideration, that the Session is too short to enable a satisfactory measure to be passed.
  MR. GIVANsaid, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman on Monday, Whether it is the intention of the Govern-

  531
  ment to introduce a Bill on the subject during next Session?

  BULGARIA AND EASTERN ROUMELIA—ILL-TREATMENT OF THE MUSSULMAN POPULATION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BAETLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is cognizant of the contents of the Blue Book distributed on the 25th inst. in which circumstantial and authentic details are given of the persecution and cruelty to which the unfortunate Mussulman population of Bulgaria and Roumelia have been and are still subject; and, whether, in view of the information contained therein, he has modified his judgment regarding the condition of the Mahometan population in those provinces?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman, I observe, has altered the Question; but I will reply to it as well as I can after hearing the words which he has used. I am generally cognizant of the character and contents of the Blue Book to which he refers, and I regard them with great pain. As to my judgment regarding the condition of the Mahometan population in Bulgaria and Roumelia, I cannot modify it, because I have not been able to form one, not feeling myself in a position to form, as, perhaps, the hon. Member has, a clear idea of the full condition of the Mussulman population in those Provinces. All that I said on a former evening was that I declined to be a party to the assertions which appeared to me to be clearly involved in the former inquiry of the hon. Gentleman—one of which was that the majority of the Mahometan population had been exterminated, and the other of which was that they had been reduced to slavery. I declined to be a party to these expressions. The state of the case I have not, I think, clearly conveyed to the mind of the hon. Member. Naturally enough the practice has been, as incidents of a painful character have been reported home, to direct particular remonstrances or expostulations to be made. That is is a mode of proceeding which is all very well up to a certain time, but which, if continued and repeated too long, loses efficacy altogether, and absolutely becomes unreal. The course, therefore, we have thought it right to take is this—We have thought it right to adopt what we believe may be
  532
  efficacious in acquiring a full and clear view of the state of the case from information of undoubted authority. The hon. Gentleman must be quite aware, as I am, that many of the reports we receive from the Provinces—for instance, the reports from the Greek population regarding the conduct of the Bulgarians, or the reports from the Bulgarians with reference to the conduct of the Greek population—cannot be received without a great deal of care and caution. What we have done is—we have included in the instructions to Mr. Goschen a particular injunction to consider, on his arrival at Constantinople, whether it would not be well that he should despatch one of the thoroughly confidential persons in immediate connection with the Embassy, and directly responsible to him, to obtain such information upon the general state of the question as may enable him distinctly to advise us as to the course we should adopt.

  COUNTY GOVERNMENT—PROPERTY VALUATION—LEGISLATION.
  MR. MAGNIAOasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is in his power to hold out any hope of his being-able before long to introduce a measure for the better government of counties and for the valuation of property?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am sorry I am not able to define a time at which it will be in our power to introduce a measure for the better government of counties and for the valuation of pro-perty—especially for the better government of counties. All I can say is that the question of local government is one of those questions which, in our estimation, stand in the very first rank as to importance and urgency of those questions which will require our attention. In proportion to the wide scope, and the vast importance of the subject, is the difficulty of fixing the time when we can attempt to deal with it. We have other competing claims to consider; and, at the present moment, I am sure my hon. Friend will not think I am undervaluing the just weight that attaches to his Question when I say I hope he will not expect me to define a time. I shall be sorry if it is not in the power of the present Administration to submit measures embodying the whole of our views with regard to them.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  In reply to Mr. DILLWYN,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was proposed to take Supply on Monday next.

  NAVY—FLOGGING IN THE NAVY.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREappealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) to postpone the Motion which stood on the Paper in his name with reference to the abolition of flogging in the Navy. After the announcement which had been made by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) in regard to flogging in the Army, it was quite clear that some action of the kind indicated by his right hon. Friend must take place with regard to the sister Service. His noble Friend (Lord Northbrook) he might add, had lost no time in bringing the question before the naval authorities; but as the Admiralty had only met for the first time on the 15th of the month, it was yet too soon to expect that they would be able to arrive at a decision upon so important a question. His hon. Friend, therefore, might postpone his Motion until the House was asked to go into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates; and if he could not then find an opportunity of bringing it on, the Government would be ready to afford him facilities for the purpose.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, that, in the circumstances, he had no objection to agree to the suggestion of his hon. Friend.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE,in moving that the Orders of the Day after Supply should be postponed till after the introduction of the Bill with reference to hares and rabbits, said that, though he had given Notice of this Bill, it would be introduced by, and would be in the charge of, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He was also able to state, on the highest authority, that the state of Private Business was so far advanced that it would be possible in future to commence Public Business at a quarter-past 4 instead of half-past.
  Ordered, That the Orders of the Day subsequent to Supply be postponed until after the Notice of Motion for a Bill relating to Hares and Rabbits.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the statement in the "Daily News" was correct, that the Government intended to give facilities for bringing on the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill this evening?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that no communication had been made to him on the subject.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—MEMBERS' SEATS IN THIS HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMON,in rising to call attention to the insufficiency of the present arrangements for the accommodation of Members in the House; and to move—
  "That the Standing Order of 6th April 1835, with respect to Members' places, be hereby repealed, and that the following he the Standing Order in place thereof:—That any Member might secure a seat by affixing his name himself thereto, and not otherwise, at half-past Three o'clock, and not earlier or afterwards, before the House meets at the usual hour, and not earlier than half an hour before the hour of meeting when the House meets for a morning sitting, provided that the Member so affixing his name be present at prayers; and that Mr. Speaker do give directions to the doorkeepers accordingly,"
  said, hon. Members had gradually fallen into the practice of securing their seats by placing their hats on them. Now, there were only certain parts of the House where an hon. Member had a chance of catching the Speaker's eye or of making himself heard; and it often happened that unless he was able to come very early in the day the seat he desired would be taken. He had himself come down at noon, and found whole rows of seats occupied by hats placed there

  535
  by Members of Committees sitting upstairs. An hon. Member of his acquaintance used to come down early, place his bat upon a seat, and spend the whole day in the building. Such a precaution, however, was not in the power of hon. Members who had professional or other engagements during the day; and those Gentlemen were, consequently, at a disadvantage. Leaving one's hat upon a seat involved remaining in the precincts of the House the whole day, and to go about with one's head uncovered was in itself no small inconvenience. He was not surprised to hear it whispered that certain hon. Members took the precaution of having two hats. But the present mode of securing seats was intolerable; and he had, therefore, thought it his duty to endeavour to devise another, which he now begged to submit to the House.
  MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member consisted of two parts, which ought to be proposed separately—namely, the repeal of one Standing Order, and the substitution of another.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, he had expected that would be so. He begged to move the repeal of the Standing Order of the 6th of April, 1835.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Standing Order, 6th April 1835, with respect to Members' places, be read, and repealed,"—(Mr. Serjeant Simon,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEagreed that the present practice of securing seats by means of hats was intolerable; but it seemed to him that the evil admitted of an easier remedy than his hon. and learned Friend proposed. It was only by courtesy that a seat was secured by a hat being placed upon it. The exceptional abuse that had arisen of late years was one against which the common sense of the House should rebel, and hon. Members ought not to scruple to take a seat on which a bat had been placed by someone else in the hope of securing it. Orders had, he believed, been given to the doorkeepers to remove cards which were placed on the seats,
  536
  and he thought a similar order ought to be given with regard to hats. A Member had no right to secure a seat by placing a bat upon it some hours beforehand. The doors ought not to be opened until a comparatively short time before the meeting of the House, and then all Members would start fair. In former years he had strongly protested against a Member having a right to occupy a seat until the close of the Sitting; for a Member, after being absent for hours, might on coming back turn out a Gentleman who had been bearing the burden and heat of the evening. When he first came into the House a Member lost his right to a seat by a division. That was a very good Rule, and he was in favour of introducing a similar one to the effect that the right to occupy a seat should only last until the House was empty, so that everybody might start fair again afterwards.
  MR. RYLANDSregretted that his hon. and learned Friend had raised the question in these terms. He could not imagine anything more calculated to inconvenience Members, and to produce the impression out-of-doors that the House of Commons was a disorderly mob, than a proposal that the doors should be kept closed until half-past 3 o'clock, and then opened for a crowd of Members to rush in for places. He entirely objected to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. They ought not easily to depart from the Standing Orders of the House, which bad been found by experience to promote the comfort and convenience of hon. Members. The proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), if reduced to common language, was simply to bring into a Parliament, representing in a very remarkable degree the gentlemen of England, a practice which would destroy the ordinary courtesy that existed among them. Hon. Members would not, be hoped, be beguiled even by the high authority of the hon. Baronet. It had been the custom for hon. Members to make arrangements for retaining their seats, and be trusted that custom would continue. Probably a larger number of Members would take part in the debates in this Parliament than in any previous one; but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House bad suggested, they ought to

  537
  have a little more experience of the new Parliament before anything was done. If, after some further experience, it were found that this House was inconveniently small, he hoped the Government would not hesitate to propose whatever alterations were necessary for the convenience of Members, and for the accommodation of strangers and of the fair sex. They ought to have a House which, instead of being a disgrace to the country, would be a credit to it. In the meantime, he implored the House not to listen to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that if the doors of the House were kept closed until half an hour before the Speaker took the Chair the strongest and biggest men, instead of the most intelligent and hardworking Members, would secure the best seats, while the physically weak Representatives would be found nowhere.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that no alteration of the present Chamber would give sufficient convenience to hon. Members. The body of the present House only seated 306 Members, which was less than the number of the Party now on the right of the Speaker's Chair. The consequent inconvenience had been felt over and over again. A Committee was appointed in 1867 to investigate the subject, and their Report would have been acted upon but for the change in the Government. The Report contained a plan to provide 113 additional seats on the floor, not by increasing the length of the House, but by making that particular Chamber into a hall that would form the entrance into a new House of Commons, which would be built in the present Commons' Court. He thought that the manner in which hon. Members were jostled about by the crowd in the Lobby was also a ground of complaint. There was a constant influx of strangers, besides gentlemen reporting for the newspapers, thus preventing anything like confidential communication between Members. There was likewise a necessity for providing increased accommodation within the House, not only for Members, but also for reporters. This was an important matter. The reporting of the proceedings in Parliament was now required to be done as extensively by the Provincial as it was by the London Press. Hon. Members who had only recently come into the
  538
  House would be surprised to learn that the only persons admitted to the Gallery were the reporters of the London Press. The Provincial Press was becoming so influential that it was not satisfied with that exclusion. The Committee which was appointed to inquire into this subject, and on which he sat, had endeavoured to find some means of increasing the accommodation. All they could recommend was to give up a portion of the two side Galleries, thus, in point of fact, still further reducing the present scanty accommodation for hon. Members. If hon. Gentlemen went to see the small rooms, or rather dens, in which the reporters attending the House transcribed their notes and waited to relieve each other, he was sure they would feel ashamed of those wretched, places. The whole of the alterations that were required could be carried out at a moderate expense; and if the Board of Works would enter into a contract for the purpose, they might by next February have a Chamber in which hon. Members could be decently and comfortably accommodated, without changing the character of the House as a Business Assembly, and not as an arena for rhetorical display.
  MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, he did not think it would be necessary to refer that matter again to a Committee. He had seen the plans which had been prepared for improving the accommodation of the House, and thought they might be studied with advantage. Until the present Parliament he had never found any difficulty in securing a place in the House; but this Session there had been considerable difficulty in doing so. Formerly they had to deal with only two Parties in that Assembly; but they were now told for the first time that there was a third Party among them, and, unless that third Party was absorbed by the supporters of the Government, he thought additional accommodation in the House would have to be provided for them. He hoped that the Government would take into their consideration the necessity of affording better accommodation to hon. Members. Not only had a large number of hon. Gentlemen shown a great zeal—he did not know how long it would last—to take part in the proceedings of the House; but the publication of the Yellow Books, which showed to their constituents the number of divisions they had attended, also had its

  539
  effect. During the last Election those Yellow Books were often quoted, and very wrongly, against hon. Members. He had himself protested against the system of judging a Member's attendance by the number of divisions he had attended. When it was charged against himself that he had attended few divisions, it was found that he had really attended more divisions than the Leader of the Opposition. In conclusion, he hoped that the Government would without delay consider the plans of Mr. Barry for improving the accommodation for hon. Members.
  MR. WALTERsaid, that, having been for many years a Member of the House, he should, perhaps, be excused for adding his testimony to that of the hon. and learned Serjeant who had commenced that discussion, and also to that of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), with respect to the great and growing inconvenience to which hon. Members, especially on that—the Ministerial—side of the House, were put from the want of accommodation. Being anxious to secure a seat a few days ago, he came down to the House at half-past 12 o'clock, and he found only one seat unoccupied out of the first six on the Bench where he had been in the habit of sitting for more than 20 years; and he was obliged, very reluctantly, to appropriate the seat which was generally occupied by his hon. Friend below him, who he hoped would not think him wanting in respect for him. That was really becoming a serious inconvenience, for men got as fond of their seats in that House as they got attached to their seats in church. Hon. Members did not like to be disturbed, and, as a matter of courtesy, one was reluctant to disturb them. But, at the same time, when there was a general scramble for places, everybody was obliged to shift for himself as best he could; and hon. Members who had been in the habit of speaking from a particular place felt considerably embarrassed and uncomfortable if they had to speak from a quarter, perhaps a remote corner, to which they were not accustomed. He saw no advantage in assenting to the proposal that the doors should be kept shut until half-past 3 o'clock, or any other fixed hour, because there would then be a general rush into the House, and the share of the best seats would
  540
  fall, not, perhaps, to those who were best entitled to them, but to the strongest and most resolute men. He was well acquainted with the plan which had been referred to for increasing the accommodation by a new building. It was drawn out many years ago, and he had always hoped that it would be adopted. But, as regarded the general idea of the Chamber for that House, he thought that the present idea could not be improved upon. He had seen the Legislative Chambers of other countries—not only those of France, but also those of America and of Canada—and he ventured to say that they were not to be compared, in point of arrangement, with the plan of the present House of Commons. But that building was undoubtedly too small for 650 Members, and it was simply preposterous that anything like the number of Members who considered themselves entitled to take part in their discussions could be accommodated within the limited space now available for them. As to its acoustical properties, everybody knew that if they tried the voice when the House was comparatively empty it was easy to be heard. On the other hand, when the House was crammed with Members, it was very difficult to make one's voice distinctly audible. If the Chamber were twice the present size, speakers would be heard much easier. Therefore, he would impress upon the Government the propriety of taking that question into its consideration at an early opportunity.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he had always been content to take any seat he could get without trying to appropriate a particular place. The ticket system offered a strong inducement to hon. Members to appropriate a particular seat at the earlier part of the evening; but they might chance to want to return to it at some later period. That system was at the root of a large portion of the inconvenience which had been complained of. It was productive of no good result, and, in his opinion, might with the greatest advantage be abolished.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he objected to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), as being calculated to lead to a scramble for seats. He could not conceive anything more likely to lead to disagreeable, if not to disastrous, conse-

  541
  quences than the adoption of the scheme suggested by the hon. and learned Member. Indeed, the present system had acted well for many years, and although there was always a certain amount of confusion at the beginning of New Parliaments, that subsided gradually; and he hoped, therefore, the House would pause before it sanctioned any new arrangement.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTcongratulated the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) on the Conservative proclivities which he had displayed on this question in wishing to adhere to the old Rules. If hon. Members who were sitting in the House for the first time would have a little patience, they would see in a few weeks a very different state of things from that which now existed. Sometimes during a Parliament there were alterations—Gentlemen retired from one side, and their successors took seats on the other side. That was a very marked feature in the Parliament elected in 1868. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) would fully appreciate these circumstances, for he felt them at the time very acutely. If they left things as they were, they would right themselves. Even in the course of that evening, during the Estimates, hon. Members would find that while the money of the country was being voted away, the House would be deserted by all save about 50 or 60 Members. They had in that House many conveniences which they might or might not have in the new one; and he, for one, should be sorry to desert the old House. In his opinion, the old Rule—which, indeed, was the only one—was sufficient. That was, that unless a Member was at prayers, and put his card into the place provided for it on the back, he could not secure a seat.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought they should stick to the present system, or dispose of the seats by ballot.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Serjeant Simon) had given expression to a very intelligible and natural feeling in consequence of the pressure that had been experienced by so many Members of the House; and, as far as the Government were concerned, he need not say that anything said on both sides of the House should have their careful attention, with the view of doing every-
  542
  thing in their power to provide the greatest accommodation and convenience for hon. Members. But he thought there would be great difficulty in discussing the larger plan referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). As regarded the more limited plan, it was evident the prosecution of that modest design was by no means what was called plain sailing. However, the discussion had contributed to ripen the minds of Members on the subject, though it had not reached a stage when it would be wise for him to tempt the House to pronounce a decision upon it. He hoped, therefore, his hon. and learned Friend would be content with having raised the discussion and withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NAVY—LOSS OF H.M.S. "ATALANTA."

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. D. JENKINS,in rising to move the following Resolution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the proposed inquiry into the loss of the 'Atalanta' will not he satisfactory if the Committee does not partake less of a departmental character than that proposed by the Government,"
  said, that a full and proper inquiry into this terrible disaster to the Navy, which involved a serious charge against the late Admiralty, could not be satisfactorily conducted if the Board of Inquiry was composed, for the most part, of naval officers, and presided over by an Admiral, however distinguished. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) wished the inquiry to be searching and independent. Therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow a want of precedent to stand in the way of his supporting this Motion. The Committee would have to deal with two or three very serious questions. First, the country would desire to know the circumstances under which the Admiralty were induced to fit out the Atalanta as a training ship after the terrible disaster to the Eurydice two years ago. The Atalanta was a ship of the same class as the Eurydice, with some slight distinction; but they were both old ships, built of wood, and of an obsolete type. In his opinion, neither of these ships was fitted to be used as a

  543
  training vessel; nor were they seaworthy in the sense in which Her Majesty's ships were seaworthy. There were various degrees of seaworthiness. Two years ago he had called the attention of the House to the loss of the Eurydice, and there were circumstances connected with that event which he had thought it his duty to bring before the House. At that time he had strongly advocated the use of ships having steam power as training ships. Steam power was at times an element to safety. But the Secretary to the Admiralty said that sailing ships ought to be used because boys could not be trained in steamers so satisfactorily as in sailing ships. But that was no reason against the use of steamers. It would not be necessary to use steam always. The steamers might ordinarily dispense with their steam power, and only use it on emergency. And why did not the Government build one or two training ships, instead of repairing old ships? He believed the cost would be less. He did not know what was the cost of the repairs of the Atalanta; but she was 30 to 40 years old, and he was sure it would cost more to put her in good condition than it would to build a new ship. The House would soon learn whether he was right. There was another reason why an independent inquiry should be instituted. An extraordinary statement made by a seaman belonging to the Atalanta had appeared in one of the newspapers. That seaman gave a narrative which, as a seaman, he could understand. The seaman, however, was interviewed by a naval officer, and he withdrew a great part of his statement. If that was so, and if influence had been brought to bear—and there was a general impression that that was the case—there was an additional reason why they should have an independent inquiry. He intended no imputation against naval officers; but his remarks were directed against the Constructive Department of the Admiralty. There was no reason why the Government should refuse to put on the inquiry some eminent shipbuilders, one or two merchant captains of known position and judgment, or some of the Elder Brethren of Trinity House. They would give an element of confidence to the inquiry in the eyes of the country which it did not now possess. The hon. Member concluded by moving
  544
  the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  MR. J. W. PEASE,in seconding the Motion, said, Her Majesty's Government would, no doubt, cause inquiry to be made as to the state of the ship, as to her capabilities, of the hands on board her, and items of a different character. These things would be inquired into by naval officers, and he had nothing to say against the capacity of officers of the British Navy for holding such an inquiry. He had no doubt the men selected would be men of high character and of great experience, men who would give their very best attention to the inquiry, and would make their Report as to the circumstances of the case. But yet it would hardly be satisfactory that the Committee of Inquiry should be composed so entirely of naval men. They knew that the class of experience obtained by naval men was very different to the experience of those who were continually working in sailing vessels. The Mercantile Marine received hundreds of lessons in difficult situations to one received by a Queen's ship; and if this inquiry were to be one which would be satisfactory to the whole country, it would have to contain an element of the Mercantile Marine. It was not part of his duty to go into the question of training in mass, or as to the best mode of training. In conclusion, he would like to be told whether the inquiry was to be carried on by naval men almost alone, or whether the shipbuilding, sailing, and merchant seamen interests were to be included in it? By the latter course alone he was sure would the Government satisfy the great majority of the people.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the proposed inquiry into the loss of the 'Atalanta' will not be satisfactory if the Committee does not partake less of a departmental character than that proposed by the Government,"—(Mr. Jenkins,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD RAMSAYsaid, he should have had no objection whatever if officers of the Merchant Service had originally been placed on the Committee; but the Com-

  545
  mittee having been nominated, he thought it would be an invidious reflection on the Navy if it went forth to the world that naval officers could not be trusted in an inquiry of this kind to report in an independent and reliable manner. The hon. Member who introduced the Motion would seem to assume that there was a kind of freemasonry existing between the Admiralty and the officers of the Navy, whereas he could safely assure them that nothing of the kind existed. He could also say with truth that there was a feeling which ran decidedly in the opposite direction, and that the Board of Admiralty had no more hostile critics in the country than naval officers of the higher ranks. He was quite sure the hon. Member did not intend by his Motion to cast any reflection upon officers of the Navy. Yet if his recommendation were adopted, he was quite certain it would be regarded in this unfavourable light by the world in general, and it would certainly be felt as such by the officers themselves. He personally had every respect, the very highest respect, for the officers of the Merchant Service, and he would have had no objection whatever had they been originally placed on the Committee; but he was sure that, good seamen as they were, he could not regard them as being more capable or any better qualified to arrive at the truth on a question of this kind than officers of the Navy. He was certain that, great as was the anxiety which all classes in the country felt on account of the missing vessel, no class was so profoundly moved as the officers of the Royal Navy, and that was, he thought, one reason why officers of the Navy, of all others, should be placed on the Committee. Were the officers named to sit on the Committee in any way responsible for the fitting-out of the ill-fated ship, he could understand the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Jenkins); but they were not. The hon. Member had referred to the opinion of an able seaman; but he would ask any competent person whether any value was to be placed on the opinion of an able seaman in the Royal Navy in regard to the qualities of a ship? He would not attach any value to it, and very few officers would, because the chances were that if the man were qualified to speak on such a subject he would have been promoted to the rank
  546
  of leading seaman or petty officer and not have remained an A.B. Now, the cases of the Atalanta and the Eurydice were very different; but the point he wished to make was this, that he distinctly protested against the imputations implied in the hon. Member's speech. He believed that, if a comparison were made of the sentences of courts martial with those passed by the Board of Trade, it would be found that the standard of severity was far higher in the Navy than in the Merchant Service. It was his sincere hope that the Government would not give way so far as the naval officers were concerned, for no naval officer would act in an unworthy manner for the purpose of screening the Admiralty.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that, having filled the Office of Secretary to the Admiralty for a period of four years, naval matters had necessarily attracted much of his attention. He hoped, therefore, the House would allow him to explain why he should have preferred to see a civilian element predominating at the inquiry. He had noticed with pain the expression that had fallen from an hon. Member that the course now proposed involved a charge against the Constructive Department of the Navy. If that were so, he should not, of course, support such a procedure. It was because there was an unpleasant feeling in the country about the two catastrophes that had deprived many people of those nearest and dearest to them—a feeling of distrust among those people—that he should have preferred a predominance of the civil element in the inquiry. Views had been expressed in the papers of the day by a very distinguished officer (Admiral Sir William King Hall) from which he felt bound to dissociate himself. That officer said that the inquiry would be a slur on the officers connected with the ship and the officers of the Dockyard where she was fitted up. Were he of the same opinion, he should not hesitate to refuse his support to the proposed inquiry. It was because he knew well how perfect the administration in their Dockyards had become, and how impossible it was that an unseaworthy ship should be sent to sea, that he was in favour of the contemplated investigation. There was one remark made by Admiral Sir William King Hall which he was glad the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Ramsay), had contra-

  547
  dicted. Admiral Sir William King Hall said that the Navy had no voice in the House of Commons. He altogether disagreed with that statement, believing that there was no man in the House of Commons who would not stand up for the Navy whenever an occasion for so doing might arise. As he had already said, he regretted, in the interests of the Service, who desired nothing more than the fullest investigation into all the circumstances connected with this matter, that the civil element did not predominate on the Committee. With an eminent shipbuilder upon it such as the late hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Samuda) to meet Mr. Rothery and Mr. Waymouth, the inquiry would be of a nature to silence for ever the uneasy feeling that existed in reference to their Dockyards. Personally he did not wish for an inquiry into the loss of the Ata-lanta. In his belief the ship was sent to sea in a most perfect condition, and the result of any inquiry that might be held would, he felt sure, be satisfactory.
  MR. NORWOODobserved, that before Parliament met he published his views on this subject in the public prints, which coincided with those expressed by previous speakers. His constituency took a great interest in the matter, Captain Stirling, the commander of the ship, having been stationed at the port of Hull, where he gained many friends and bore the reputation of being a most able and gallant officer. The prevailing feeling throughout the country was that this was a disaster of a most serious character, and following so soon after the loss of the Eurydice doubts had arisen in connection with the administration of the Navy which it was desirable should be removed. Under the Merchant Shipping Act inquiries were held of a perfectly independent character. They were conducted by a Government officer, assisted by assessors, one of whom was almost invariably an officer of the Royal Navy. These inquiries were of the greatest benefit to the Mercantile Marine, and their effect was to make owners and masters very careful in the performance of their duties. Why should not so salutary a system be adopted in the case of the Royal Navy also? If in future all casualties connected with the Royal Navy were inquired into by a thoroughly independent body, much good would ensue. He was
  548
  glad that his suggestion that Mr. Rothery would be an excellent Chairman to the Committee had been adopted by the Admiralty. He had no desire that the Royal Navy should not be represented on the Committee. The best Committee, in his opinion, would be one on which two Naval officers should act as Mr. Rothery's asesssors, and on which there should be two other gentlemen, one of them being an eminent shipbuilder. He could assure the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Ramsay) that there was no mistrust as to the character of naval officers felt personally among those supporting this Motion. The question was, however, from the peculiar circumstances and great loss of life attending it, one which the public felt should not be left to departmental scrutiny alone.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREcould assure those hon. Members who had spoken on the subject that Lord Northbrook and his Colleagues were fully determined that the proposed inquiry should be full, independent, and impartial. Everybody must sympathize with the sufferers in the great disaster which had occurred, and the Admiralty felt that the loss of a second vessel of the kind within so short a period of time must necessarily create great uneasiness in the public mind. The inquiry, therefore, they were of opinion should be of such a nature as to be in every way satisfactory. Into the merits of the case he would not enter, and he was sorry to have heard the opinion expressed that the Atalanta was unseaworthy. To him it appeared unwise, at the present moment, to express any opinion on the subject; but he could not refrain from expressing a hope that the result of the inquiry would go to show that the vessel was seaworthy, so that the confidence of the public might be fully restored. The proposed Committee, he might add, must not be regarded as being in any way a Departmental Committee; and he was disposed to agree with the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Ramsay) in the view he took as to the tendency of officers on such an inquiry to act quite independently of the Admiralty. In those cases in which there happened to be survivors after such a loss as that of the Atalanta, a naval court martial was appointed, which inquired not only into the conduct of the commander of the vessel,

  549
  but into the general question of her seaworthiness. There was such an inquiry in the case of the Eurydice, from the wreck of which two seamen had been saved. The same course had been taken after the loss of the Captain, in which a Court of naval officers expressed the opinion that the stability of the ship was not satisfactory—a fact which showed that they did not hesitate to act independently even where the Admiralty was concerned. The same observation applied to the case of the Megœra; and in a number of other cases, where it was impossible to put men upon their trial, Courts and Committees of Inquiry had been instituted by the Admiralty, the whole of whose members, or at all events the great majority, consisted of naval men. He might, for instance, mention the case of the Thunderer, where a Court of Inquiry was held to inquire into the cause of the explosion of her gun, and where the Court consisted of three officers, assisted by one assessor, a civil engineer of eminence; and he could show that in all these cases the naval men con-corned had exercised an independent judgment, and had not unfrequently expressed an opinion adverse to the action of the Admiralty. In the present instance, there being no survivors, no court martial would be held; and the Admiralty had deemed it right, after due consideration, to appoint a Committee consisting of five members, two of whom were civilians, which was going further in the direction of the civilian clement than any similar instance of which he could find a record. Of Mr. Rothory, one of the members, all he need say was that, in his opinion, he would be a tower of strength to the Committee in the prosecution of its labours. The two civilians placed upon the Committee would bring to it the legal knowledge required for the cross-examination of witnesses, and a technical knowledge as to the construction of ships which naval officers were not supposed to possess. So strengthened, the Committee, he believed, would inspire general confidence. Admiral Ryder, as a member of the Committee of Designs, had a peculiar knowledge of naval architecture and a great capacity for minute, laborious, and conscientious inquiry, and his two naval colleagues possessed to an unusual extent the con-
  550
  fidence of their fellow-officers. The only objection that could be made to the Committee was that the civil element in it was not numerically in the majority. In no previous inquiry instituted by the Admiralty, however, had that element been so strong; and, now that the Committee had been constituted, to add to it as suggested would be casting a slur upon the naval officers who were already appointed. He had every confidence that those officers would bring to their task a thoroughly independent judgment and unhesitatingly attach blame to the Controller's Department of the Admiralty, which was the Department chiefly concerned, if, in their opinion, it deserved it. The members of the Committee had been most carefully selected by Lord Northbrook and his Colleagues, and their names had been submitted to, and approved by, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith), who, however, it was only fair to add, had no official responsibility in the matter. He (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) believed the Committee would give full, patient, and thoroughly satisfactory consideration to the matter, and was entitled to every confidence in the exercise of its judgment.
  MR. W. H. SMITHremarked, that the loss of the Atalanta had weighed heavily upon all who were connected with the Admiralty, both on account of the valuable lives lost and the distrust in Admiralty management which it was calculated to awake in the country. Upon the probable causes of the calamity it would, of course, be improper for him to speculate in view of the inquiry about to be made; but he thought it right to state that the late Board of Admiralty had left behind them a record of their desire for an inquiry of the fullest and most impartial character. As that inquiry was to be conducted under their Successors, they had thought it right to leave to those gentlemen the responsibility of constituting the Court; and the task had been performed in a manner which had his thorough approbation. He believed the course taken by the present Board of Admiralty was one which would produce most satisfactory results. It was a great error to suppose that naval officers were in any way subservient to the Board of Admiralty. There was no more independent body of men in existence than naval officers; and

  551
  from them more, perhaps, than from any other class of men, the Admiralty might look for a harsh verdict. Having, however, a special knowledge, they were competent to ask questions, and drive a naval inquiry home in a manner which would probably be beyond the power of persons outside the Service. He believed the Committee as at present constituted was perfectly fit for the task before it, and that it would go to the bottom of the whole affair. The members of it certainly had the knowledge, the power, and the ability to do so; and those questions which the naval officers might overlook, Mr. Rothery, whose capacity for conducting an inquiry was well known, might be trusted to put. For his own part, he believed the unfortunate vessel was in good order and condition, and fit for the work for which she was designed. He need hardly say that, so far as he was concerned, had she been in an unsound condition, she would not have been sent to sea. He trusted they would not add to the calamity by importing heat into it, or by questioning the perfect honour, fairness, and integrity of the gentlemen appointed to inquire into it. That inquiry, he was sure, however little light it might throw on the disaster itself, would be conducted in a manner perfectly satisfactory to the public.
  MR. W. HOLMSsupported the Motion of the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. Jenkins). Let them consider the circumstances with which they had to deal. They had been told by the Secretary to the Admiralty that there was a feeling of uneasiness among the public, and it was not surprising that there should be such a feeling. Not long ago the Eurydice went down, and now they had the loss of the Atalanta, a vessel of similar construction. It was extremely desirable, therefore, that the inquiry should be full, open, and satisfactory. He did not doubt the honour and integrity of the naval officers named in the Commission; but gentlemen connected with the Department responsible for having sent the ship to sea should not be the men chiefly appointed to inquire into the disaster. The civil element should be more prominent. They were told that there was no precedent for an equal number of civilians being put on a Committee of this kind. If that were so he was sorry to hear it, and he thought the sooner they had
  552
  a change in this respect the better. For the sake of the Admiralty itself, he hoped that the inquiry would not be conducted simply by three or four gentlemen connected with the Department. Unless the constitution of the Committee was altered, it would not inspire that perfect confidence which it ought to do. It was only human nature to suppose that men connected with the Admiralty should be biassed—perhaps unconsciously—in favour of the Admiralty. He should have preferred that naval officers should only have been appointed as assessors; but since three had been appointed members of the Committee, he would suggest that the Committee should be strengthened by the addition of, at least, two more civilians, and he hoped that this arrangement would form a precedent for the future.
  ADMIRAL EGERTONthought it would have been much better to have the Committee composed entirely of naval officers. He thought that those officers were quite as independent as they had been described, and could well be trusted to give an impartial judgment on the matter. In the ease of the collision between Her Majesty's ship Amazon and a merchant ship called the Osprey a court martial was held; and in consequence of the decision of that tribunal, which was, of course, exclusively composed of naval officers, the State had to pay a large sum of money, because the court held that the fault was on the side of Her Majesty's vessel. As in the present instance it had been thought proper by the Admiralty to place on the Committee certain gentlemen who were not connected with Her Majesty's Service, he did not see why their number should be so limited. Still, as the Admiralty had decided on these names, he trusted they would not be disposed to alter them.
  MR. E. J. REEDwished that those who were in favour of an independent investigation would dispense with tinsel compliments, and that they would speak a little more plainly than some of his hon. Friends had done. The question agitating the country was not that which had been discussed this evening from the front Benches. It was not whether naval officers were honourable men who could be trusted to conduct an inquiry; but whether it was a seemly thing to

  553
  appoint naval officers, however trustworthy, to conduct an inquiry of this character, in which the public were so largely interested. No one could suppose that a Committee which was forced upon all independent Members of the House and upon the public could be satisfactory even if the men who composed it were the souls of honour. It might be in accordance with "immemorial usage" to appoint naval officers to hold such an inquiry; but he was not of opinion that the immemorial usages of the Navy were suited to modern life. The Secretary to the Admiralty said it was a mistake to suppose that naval officers were in any way subordinate to the Board of Admiralty. That statement he heard with extreme surprise. The Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, who was to be Chairman of the Committee, himself received orders every day from the Admiralty; and it was in the power of the Admiralty to render the greatest possible services to naval officers generally. It was, therefore, a mistake to suppose that naval officers were not subordinate to the Admiralty. He had not a suspicion in his own mind directed to the Atalanta, or against any person who had had anything to do with her. He knew the Atalanta. She was a beautiful, handsome, perfect vessel when he was a youngster, and he admired her immensely. Indeed, he believed she was the best built and the best finished man-of-war of that period that he was ever permitted to see or have anything to do with. Therefore, he had no prejudice against her. It was, however, highly desirable that an inquiry should be instituted which would be satisfactory to the country. If such a Committee as that under discussion had been nominated before the General Election, the Liberals would have been justified in denouncing the Committee, and saying to the electors, "Change the Government, and you will find it will be better." He simply pleaded on the Government's own behalf that the inquiry, when made, should be a satisfactory one. What had been asked? The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) said he would be perfectly content with the addition of two gentlemen eminently acquainted with the subject to the Committee. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), he thought, said the addition of one gentleman would be satisfactory. He
  554
  (Mr. E. J. Reed) told the Secretary to the Admiralty the other day that he would be perfectly satisfied if they would add one more civil member to the Committee, and make Mr. Rothery Chairman. An arrangement had been made which he highly approved—namely, a Member of the House of Lords was First Lord of the Admiralty. It had some disadvantages; but in connection with the patronage of the Navy it had very great advantages. He was delighted also with the selection of the Admiralty in the House of Commons, because the Secretary to the Admiralty was eminently qualified for the post he occupied; and if the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Brassey) could be persuaded to devote his time to the Office which he held, the country should be very grateful to him for having accepted the offer of that Office. He thought the Admiralty was perfectly well constituted; but in this case Members were at a disadvantage—the First Lord was in the House of Peers, and they had not the means of getting at him to-night. He hoped he had said enough to explain the nature of their desire. Their desire was simply that the Committee might be so slightly modified as to give general satisfaction.
  MR. MAGNIACobserved, that at the commencement of the debate it was said no civilian was on the Committee. Later on it oozed out that there were civilians on the Committee. The hon. Member who had just spoken said he required a perfectly independent Committee.
  MR. E. J. REED: I distinctly stated that my hon. Friend and myself would be satisfied with the Committee as it is, with the addition of one civilian.
  MR. MAGNIAC: The hon. Member not only once, but twice or thrice, claimed to have a perfectly independent Committee. He said that naval officers were so dependent upon the Admiralty that they could not act independently; therefore, by "independent," the hon. Member must have meant that the Committee should not be composed of civilian Members. There was no other way of construing the word. He (Mr. Magniac) should like to know upon whom the responsibility would lie if a catastrophe occurred to any Department? If every disaster that happened to the Army or Navy was to be inquired into by an outside Committee of civilians,

  555
  the country, he thought, would be landed in a position of departmental irresponsibility which would be found excessively inconvenient. He did not wish to minimize this disaster; but they had to consider not merely the satisfaction of the public; they had to consider the officers of a great Department, in whom they had such confidence that they looked to them to defend their families and the country in time of war. For the first time, as he believed, in the history of the Navy, a civilian had been joined with officers of the Navy in inquiring into a disaster which had occurred. As to the first gentleman, Mr. Rothery, he supposed that, if the world were searched, one more independent or more competent to fill the place he had been put in could not be found. He would refer to another member of the Committee. They all knew of Lloyd's Register, in which every ship was so accurately classified that its merits could be accurately known from its position in the register. That register was supervised by Mr. Waymouth, who had thus acquired an amount of knowledge absolutely unequalled. He did not think that with such men as Mr. Rothery and Mr. Waymouth upon it the Committee could be otherwise than satisfactory to the public.
  MR. JENKINSbegged to be allowed to withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

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

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  (1.) £32,666, to complete the sum for House of Lords Offices.
  (2.) £37,706, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.
  (3.) £42,835, to complete the sum for the Treasury.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that year after year objections had been made to the large amount paid as fees to counsel assisting the Parliamentary Counsel. A very large sum-namely, £5,689, was already paid in
  556
  respect of the regular Parliamentary Counsel and Office, and it was most objectionable that extra legal assistance should have to be obtained at a cost of £1,700 for outside parties to assist the regular paid Counsel as draughtsmen. This charge had now become annual, and therefore should become a regular fixed sum as salaries to the parties employed. There could be no difficulty in framing an exact statement of the work required to be done by the Parliamentary Counsel, and of the work done by the outside assistants and draughtsmen, and by this publicity they would avoid the large excess annually for fees; or else put on the regular establishment the parties whose services were permanently needed. He hoped that in future the Treasury would endeavour to frame a more exact Estimate, and also that the details of this expenditure should be given, and that the House should know how the money was laid out, for what work and to what persons.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was desirable that the Government measures should be, as far as possible, prepared by the regular officer appointed for the purpose. But from time to time, when pressure arose, it became impossible. The Government would endeavour, so far as possible, to save expenditure in this direction.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he hoped that the Government would in future give more details with regard to the expenditure than had hitherto been the case. An Estimate was necessarily vague. But the spending of the money entailed the taking of vouchers, and the work done for the public money, as also the parties receiving that money, could be so clearly stated as to allow of the several details being clearly set forth.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £67,576, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
  (5.) £54,041, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.
  (6.) £27,812, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.
  (7.) £23,179, to complete the sum for the Privy Council.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that before this Vote was passed he wished to call attention to the expenses incurred

  557
  in the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council. The Estimates contained, a considerable charge in respect of travelling Inspectors. They had a right to expect that those persons should be practically acquainted with the duties which they had to fulfil. During the last Parliament he had to call attention to some of the appointments to these offices. The persons appointed by the late Government were officers on half-pay who knew nothing about the duties; and he must protest against such appointments as these being reserved for gentlemen who had no practical knowledge of the work. He should also like to see more information obtained by the Privy Council regarding the state of cattle disease in other countries, and more particularly in Canada and various parts of the United States. Under the present Act the whole of the United States was treated as one country; but it would be very desirable to obtain store cattle from the Western States of America, where they were very cheap, if this could be done with safety. He did recommend, in the present state of their information, that cattle should be admitted into this country from the United States; but he considered that the Veterinary Department of the Privy Council ought to procure full information as to the state of health of cattle in the Western States of America, and, if the reports were satisfactory, to ascertain whether it would be practicable to bring them across to this country without risk of contamination. This was a matter of great importance to the country, and more especially to farmers, who had to submit to a very keen competition with the fat cattle from America which were slaughtered at the ports of debarkation. He thought that the Veterinary Department would do great service to the country by taking the necessary steps to obtain information as to the herds of American cattle in the Western States, and, if no disease were found to exist, to take further steps to provide, if practicable, for their being brought, as might be done, to this country without passing through any of the States in which disease existed. That information they could obtain either by means of special Inspectors or from the Consuls at towns in the Western States of America.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he regretted that his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mundella) was not present; but he would take care to inform him of the observations which had been made. He agreed that it would be of importance to be able to receive store cattle from America, if it could be done without injury to the herds of this country. It was necessary to have very accurate knowledge, however, as to whether they could be brought here without having to pass through infected States.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that he hoped the Government would take into consideration the desirability of appointing gentlemen to the offices of travelling Inspectors who had a practical acquaintance with the subject. There were very strong reasons why gentlemen appointed as Inspectors should possess some general knowledge of the diseases of cattle.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) advocated the admission of store cattle into this country from the Western States of America. In his opinion, it would be an unwise step to adopt, and it would be much bettor to continue the stringent regulations now in force.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he found that the quarantine expenses at Portsmouth amounted to about £1,200, whereas the expenses for all other ports, including London, only came to £700.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the Government had every desire to appoint those gentlemen as Inspectors who were best qualified to perform the duties. With respect to the quarantine expenses at Portsmouth being so much in excess of those at other ports, it was owing to the fact that nearly all the quarantine work, was performed at that port.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that it was to be regretted that the Ministers in charge of the Departments were not present in the House while the Votes for which they were responsible were being discussed. He did not wish to complain of the matter; but it was unfair to throw so much extra work upon the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, and it also led to the postponement of many questions which might be disposed of if Ministers were in their places.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that he quite agreed, with his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that it much facilitated the discussion of the Votes if Ministers were in their places. It was unusual for these matters to be discussed during the absence of the heads of the Departments. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council should be sent for. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had the honour of sitting in that House when the late Lord Palmerston was Prime Minister. The noble Lord was nearly always in his place in the House and very seldom left it. He thought that that was an example which would be well followed in these days.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury had met with unusual luck in getting so many Votes passed in so short a time. It did not seem to him (Mr. O'Connor Power) that the spirited economy advocated by the Government, while out of Office, had as yet manifested itself now that they were in power. If they could not have the benefit of the explanations of Ministers, he should suggest that they reported Progress. It was utterly impossible that they should go on with these Estimates until they were satisfied that the expenditure was really required. With respect to the particular Vote under discussion he had no objection to raise; but there might be others, more especially with regard, to Ireland, upon which explanation would be necessary.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that he much regretted the absence of his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Privy Council. He saw him a few minutes ago, when he promised to be in his place shortly. His right hon. Friend probably did not expect that his presence would be so soon required.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that he was quite satisfied with the explanation of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,090, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on
  560
  the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal."
  MR. MONKsaid, that he was glad that the Government was not responsible for the preparation of these Estimates. Had they been so, he should have felt it his duty to protest against this Vote. When the late Government was in Office, and also when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was in Office previously, he had taken exception to the Vote for the Office of the Lord Privy Seal. He hoped that the time had now come for its prospective, if not its immediate, abolition. He hoped to hear either from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, or from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that the Office of Lord Privy Seal was to be put an end to. As a great many new Members had taken their seats in the House, he thought it would be right that they should have an opportunity of expressing their opinions with regard to this Office. He had never heard any good reason offered for the retention of the post of Lord Privy Seal, except that it was useful in "another place," and that the noble Lord who held it was of use in the representation of some Department of State in "another place." He should not move a reduction of the Vote, if any promise were given as to the future abolition of the Office; but in default of such promise he should divide the Committee upon the whole Vote.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that he had on more than one occasion voted in the minority against the retention of the Office of Lord Privy Seal. No one could have sat in the last Parliament, but had heard the explanation given by the late Ministry to justify the retention of that Office that the Lord Privy Seal was if use—when any head of a Department, through ill health or otherwise, was unable to attend to his duties. What had occurred to him was that the Office need not be abolished if its duties were conjoined with those of a Secretary of State for Scotland. If the present Government would entertain that proposal, they would avoid the constant recurrence of divisions upon the question which he had invariably felt bound to support, simply because he did not believe it was requisite or desirable to have any Office retained for which a sum was voted with-

  561
  out any corresponding duties. No one could doubt but that the great talent of the distinguished Nobleman who now filled the Office (the Duke of Argyll) could be of great service to the country, and he was certain that that was the desire of that Nobleman. He (Mr. Ramsay) thought it would be an advantage to his country if the duties of the Lord Privy Seal were conjoined with taking charge of the public affairs of Scotland in Parliament. He thought, therefore, it would be well if the present Government considered whether it might not be a desirable thing to have this brought about. He was aware that there were those who sought to describe the Lord Advocate as being the Scotch Minister; but the late Home Secretary bad told them again and again that he (Mr. Cross) was the Minister of State for Scotland, and everyone who had come into contact with the right hon. Gentleman had met with the greatest courtesy and attention in reference to the affairs of Scotland. But that was not a satisfactory state of matters, because in going to the Home Secretary they bad to encounter a person who was not personally acquainted with the sentiments or wants and wishes of the people of Scotland. The suggestion, therefore, he had made in the last Parliament would, he thought, obviate the difficulty the Government had felt regarding this Vote, and it would be carried without dissent if Her Majesty's Ministers were to adopt his view. He hoped they would hear from the First Lord of the Treasury some explanation in regard to his views; because he felt that, if they must come to a division, he must, in the absence of satisfactory explanation, vote with the minority as on former occasions.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that it was very difficult indeed for him, desirous as he was of retaining the support of both his hon. Friends, to win it on that occasion by promising to combine the Office of Lord Privy Seal with new functions, and to bring into existence a Secretary of State for Scotland. The question of the retention of the Office of Lord Privy Seal was one which lay within a comparatively narrow compass, while that of the creation of a Secretary of State for Scotland was a very serious and complicated one, and one which involved a multitude of considerations, many of which did not appear upon the
  562
  surface. It was one also which did not stand alone. If such an Office were created, a number of persons would be ready to claim a Secretary of State for Ireland; others would claim a Secretary of State for Education; others a Secretary of State for Agriculture and Commerce. The multiplying of Secretaries of State was too serious a matter to be disposed of on such occasions as the present. If the retention of the Office of Lord Privy Seal stood alone it would be hard to defend it; but it did not. The holder of the Office was a Member of the Cabinet. If the House thought that the Cabinet might do more work than it did, then that was a proper subject for consideration. But if it were of opinion that there was quite enough for the Cabinet to do, the wisest course would be to leave the Cabinet to make the internal distribution of its duties for itself. In that point of view he could say that in the Cabinets in which he had sat the Lord Privy Seal was a very useful Minister. Most of the Ministers were so full of the duties of their Departments that it was not possible to put upon them the whole burden of legislation. Therefore, a Minister less charged with, or wholly free from, departmental duties was often of the greatest use to his Colleagues by taking care of Bills which it was really impossible for them to undertake, and in other ways. There were six Cabinet Ministers in the House of Lords, among them being the Lord Chancellor; the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was also charged with the duties of Leader of the House; the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the First Lord of the Admiralty; and those Ministers were all men whose hands were completely filled with the duties of their Offices. It was of the greatest value to the Government to have a Member of the Cabinet to whom they could assign with perfect propriety the charge of Business that could not well be undertaken by other Members of the Government who were more closely occupied in the duties of the Departments. It was, indeed, of great service to the Government, in 1868, to have a Cabinet Minister able to conduct the negotiations with America. The then holder of the Office of Lord Privy Seal (Lord Kipon) was enabled to undertake that duty, which could only have been performed by a Cabinet Minister. In stag-

  563
  nant times, no doubt, the case would be weak for the retention of the Office; but at a time like the present, when legislation had fallen into arrear, when the Government were hard pressed in handling the subjects which were forced upon their attention, he did not hesitate to say that the presence in the Cabinet of the holder of the Office of Lord Privy Seal was of the greatest importance. That which constituted the perfection of a Cabinet was the facility it possessed for discussing all the measures it proposed to introduce from every possible point of view, so that every objection that could be made might be anticipated and considered. It was most useful to have a man in the Cabinet whose mind was free from the duties of his Department, and who was able to devote himself to the consideration of the proposals of others. He did not hesitate to say that it was of very great advantage to have some Member of the Cabinet at liberty to consider proposed legislation, for he was better able to make suggestions with reference to proposals than those whose minds were occupied with their departmental duties. He did not wish to overstate the case, and he was not one who admired a sinecure Office; but he could assure the House that the Office of Lord Privy Seal in this Cabinet was not a sinecure; and in the present state of public affairs, the demand—the legitimate demand—upon them being far beyond their power to meet, his belief was that the public got full value for the not very extravagant charge to which they were put by maintaining the Office.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that he had always voted against the retention of this Office. It had been opposed for a number of years, and he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister exactly appreciated the principle upon which they opposed it. It was not that they objected to the Nobleman who now filled the Office; it was that the Office was ostensibly a sinecure. They objected to Offices of which there did not appear to be any duties. He was prepared to admit that the Office was one which might be made useful, and if it wore given another name it might be well to continue it. But he did not think that an obsolete Office should be allowed to remain which had no duties attached to it. There might
  564
  be some duties to the Office; but there were certainly no real duties. It was well known, both to the House and to the public, that this was a sinecure Office. He did not object to there being an extra Cabinet Minister, for he was in favour of the Cabinet being more fully represented. In his opinion, those Ministers who had no special duties to perform should be called Ministers without portfolios. It was right that the country should know the way in which public money was spent. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, no doubt, given excellent reasons for the appointment of a Minister without portfolio. They desired the abolition of this Office without any personal feeling; and he trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Palkirk (Mr. Ramsay) would divide the Committee upon the point. Where a question of principle was involved it was desirable that they should record their opinions by a division.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that if his hon. Friends went to a division he should follow them into the Lobby, as he had done in previous years. It was not that he objected to the £2,790 for the services of a great Officer of State as now voted for this Office; but, as had been stated, a question of principle was involved. It was fully admitted that no Office ought to be retained to which no ostensible duties were attached; at the same time, there was great need for the appointment of a Secretary of State for Scotland.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member would not be in Order in referring to the duties of a Secretary of State for Scotland on a question regarding a Vote for the Lord Privy Seal.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that he had the same object in view as his hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay), who desired to unite this Office with that of Secretary of State for Scotland. He was in favour also of a Secretary of State for Ireland, and for the abolition of the Office of Lord Lieutenant.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the subject of the Lord Lieutenant would come before the Committee in a separate Vote, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman would then be in Order in his reference to a Secretary of State for Ireland.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, that the object which they had in

  565
  view was to make the money which, was voted for this Office available for the performance of the duties of a Secretary of State for Scotland. At present, Scotch Business was almost wholly neglected.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that he came into the House with the intention of voting against the salary paid to the Lord Privy Seal. But having heard the argument of the right hon. Gentle-man the Prime Minister, he had come to the conclusion to support the Vote. It seemed to him conclusively proved that in the present state of public affairs it was necessary to have a Minister in the Cabinet without departmental duties. As the Government had succeeded to a muddle, he thought they were entitled to the services of the distinguished Nobleman who now held this Office to assist them in the Cabinet. Next year, he should reserve to himself a liberty of exercising his judgment upon the retention of this post; but it seemed to him right for the due conduct of public affairs at the present time that they should retain the services of the singularly distinguished Nobleman who now held the Office of Lord Privy Seal.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, that he should not have addressed the Committee had it not been for the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Thorold Rogers). It was true that there had been a muddle in this matter, and that muddle enabled any hon. Member who had sat in the House for some Sessions to offer his condolences to the hon. Members who objected to this Vote. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was entitled to their condolences, because he had lost the support of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). The hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea for some years past had taken part in the attempt to abolish this Office. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was also entitled to their condolences, because others of his Colleagues had also supported the abolition of the Office. No less personages than the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Law Officers of the Crown, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General, had also voted against the retention of the Office of Lord Privy Seal. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate also had done the same, and
  566
  he was sure that if that right hon. and learned Gentleman had had any business to transact in the House that evening, he would, as on previous occasions, have voted for the abolition of the Office. Last year the noble Lord the Comptroller of the Household (Lord Kensington) was also found amongst its opponents. In the divisions of the last Parliament, however, the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would not be found as voting on this question. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was glad to be able to support the right hon. Gentleman on this, as on former occasions, as he thought that his arguments were perfectly sound. In one of his speeches in Scotland the right hon. Gentleman spoke about an appeal from Philip sober to Philip drunk. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), however, would appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober. Now that the Government was becoming sober, and was doing sober things, they would always have his support, as they had on that occasion. He hoped, now that the Government was becoming sober in small things, it would become sober in great things also, so that Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House might give them their support.
  MR. SHERIDANhoped the Motion would not be pressed.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that it was well worth raising a debate upon the Vote for the sake of the intellectual treat which they had had. He begged to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister very much for the information which he had afforded them as to the internal economy of the Cabinet. The principle on which he should give his vote was this. Although it was true that the Lord Privy Seal had plenty to do by assisting his Colleagues, yet so long as they retained an Office of this kind, which was professedly a sinecure, they would always be open to criticism. Another victory had been scored by the champions of economy in the admission of the Prime Minister of the general principle of the matter at stake, when he stated that he was opposed to sinecure Offices. As the Prime Minister had seen his way to concede the principle of their contention, perhaps at a future time, when the opposition to that Vote had become more extended, he would be able to suggest some distribution of Cabinet Offices that

  567
  would save them discussions of that nature, which, during the six Sessions of the last Parliament, had always come up with perfect regularity, but had been carried on hitherto, he was sorry to say, in vain. Under these circumstances, he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the discussion (Mr. Monk) would consider it his duty to divide the Committee. The Prime Minister, he was sure, would not ignore the force of their protest, even if they did not divide, but would fully take into consideration the plea which had been urged against the grant for the Office of Lord Privy Seal.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 89; Noes 57: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 7.)
  (9.) £126,443, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was not going to make any remarks this year as to the large amount of these Estimates, although there had been some increase in them, because he knew, of course, that the Government were not responsible for the figures; but he did complain that there was no regular rule, apparently, as to the services which the officials should perform, and there was no getting to know what was the work which they had to do. For instance, it appeared, by a foot-note to page 93, that the Assistant Secretary of the Board of Trade was allowed to occupy an appointment as Auditor, under the Metropolitan Water Act of 1871, for which he received £550, paid, of course, by the Companies. While this gentleman was thus holding this office, he was also employed as one of the Secretaries of the Board of Trade. There was a similar employment, which to him was equally objectionable, where a gentleman received fees as a member of the Thames Conservancy Board, while being also a Government official. Of course, it was quite reasonable that the Board of Trade should have some control over these Boards, and, for his part, he wished they had a far greater control over the Water Companies; but, at the same time, it was very undesirable that the officials should be mixed up in this way. He thought the appointments to them should be clear and distinct. He hoped,
  568
  therefore, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) would institute a patient inquiry, and that, as the result of his presence at the Board of Trade, they would see a complete change in this respect. In the hope that there would be a very close inquiry into the matter, he did not propose to move any Amendment.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURwished to call attention to the large amount of the law charges to the extent of £16,000, being only £800 less than the amount for the previous year, and he really should like to have some information as to how that money was laid out. The whole of this large sum was set forth under general heads, not susceptible of check. As for other payments, however small, paid to individuals, besides these large amounts, they found the items of law charges spread over every Vote in the Estimates, and, for his part, he thought nothing could be more beneficial than to draw those Votes into one statement, so that they might see exactly what was spent in this way. From a rough calculation, he believed that £100,000 would not cover the different amounts thus scattered over the accounts for law charges, all set forth without any specification as to detailed expenditure. He hoped, also, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) would show the divisions of the Departments of the Board of Trade more clearly. They already had Legal and Standard Departments; but he should particularly like to know something about the Harbour Department. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Harbour Department comes under Class I.] His right hon. Friend would find, upon inquiry, that under the Act of 1861, certain general duties, there recorded, over all harbours of the United Kingdom, were taken from the Admiralty and handed over to the Board of Trade, one Assistant Secretary of the Board now receiving £1,500 a-year for looking after the harbours, with a large and costly establishment to aid them in performing duties much more economically and efficiently than by the Harbour Department of the Admiralty. He did urge these matters upon the attention of his right hon. Friend, because they were spending thousands and thousands every year, and had spent millions in the past, upon harbours, without anyone knowing

  569
  in the least How wasteful a mode of dealing with the public money as well as the private money was now followed by reason of their ignorance as to how to design and construct harbours. No one was more anxious than himself to see good harbours round the coast. He believed incredible good might be done to the country, if they only understood how to construct them; but he did deprecate making those harbours without any sort of control as to whether the plans and improvements were sound. He urged the Predecessors of his right hon. Friend to give them an annual Report upon all the harbours of the Kingdom. The efficient head of the Harbour Department of the Board of Admiralty, 30 years ago, prepared a Report on the harbours which, if now revised and the information made complete, would be most useful; and he hoped now, in the public interest, that would be done.
  MR. MACDONALDalso objected to the system of allowing paid officials of the State to accept salaries from other persons or from the State. Every lover of economy, and every friend of his country, ought to set his face against such a system. For instance, there was this case of £550 a-year paid for the audit of the Water Company Accounts. That official also enjoyed a salary of £1,000 a-year from the Government, and, for his part, he (Mr. Macdonald) could not understand how one person could properly fill two situations valued at those amounts. The work in one place must be neglected. Therefore, that gentleman should confine his attention to one Department, and make room in the other for some other person. Again, he found that one of the items included a special allowance of £100 a-year to the present holder. It was not explained what that sum was for, and, for his part, he was of opinion that every shilling on the Votes should be accounted for, otherwise they might arrive at the conclusion that this money was generally given from personal favouritism. ["Oh, oh!"] They thought fit to cry "Oh, oh!" There could be no doubt of this, that they thought, like many others, that abuses and scandals of this kind had only to be supported by the Gentlemen occupying the Treasury Benches for the time being, and the "Outs" who were doing all they could to get in.
  570
  Such a state of things could not last. He ventured to say that 19 out of 20 persons out of the House seeing the Vote there would put that construction upon it. He did not wish in any way to embarrass the Government; but if this system of double situations were continued, he would do his very best in the future to put a stop to it.
  MR. NORWOODobserved, that he saw from the public prints that there was an intention to reduce the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board from £1,500 to £1,200. He ventured on behalf of the mercantile community to say that that gentleman had to perform very important functions, for by his judgment and his intelligence the trade of this country might be very greatly benefited, or the reverse. Every other Parliamentary Secretary was allowed £1,500 a-year; and why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was to be made inferior in status to the others he could not understand. He hoped to have an assurance from his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) that the late arrangement would remain intact, and that this gentleman's position would not be affected.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, there was an item about which he should wish some further explanation. There was a product called kelp. [An hon. MEMBER: What?] Kelp was petrified ashes of seaweed, and a number of chemicals, such as the iodides and the bromides, were produced from it. It was produced in very large quantities on the West Coast of Ireland, and sold from thence to the Glasgow merchants, who resolved it into its chemical products. The trade was in the hands of a very few manufacturers; while the producers were the very rudest peasants, very ignorant of the value of the commodity in which they dealt. Some Government Department ought to give information as to the price of kelp from year to year, and the value of the products from it, so that the producers might be able to know the value of the article they sold. The Committee would see how important the question was, when he told them that the great fall in the price of kelp was the main cause of the distress on the Coast of Ireland. If his right hon. Friend at the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) could not give him any information on the subject, he hoped he

  571
  would do his best to see that it was given.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would certainly take the first opportunity of making the inquiry, the importance of which he fully recognized. He hoped it might he in the power of his own Department to furnish the information, and if his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) would communicate with him in a few days, he could let him know what information he had, or where he could obtain it. He could assure him he should be very glad to give him any assistance. With regard to the salary of the Secretary, of course that matter did not rest with him, but was a question which concerned the Treasury. He had, however, been informed that the subject had been under the consideration of the Treasury, and having regard to the importance of the duties of the Office, and especially to, as he might say, the growing importance of the Office in connection with commerce and agriculture, it had been decided that it was undesirable to make any change. His attention had been called to the question of harbours; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Sir George Balfour) would scarcely expect him to give a detailed answer upon so very complicated a subject only a few days after he had entered upon the duties of his Office. He trusted he would be quite satisfied with an assurance that before the next Estimates were prepared he hoped to give full information on any of the points with reference to which inquiry was made. He must, therefore, simply appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Whitwell), and must remind him that these Estimates were not prepared by him, but by his Predecessors. As a matter of fact, he only saw them that morning, a few minutes before he came down to the House. He was, therefore, in some little difficulty, because he was not absolutely certain as to the accuracy of the information he might give. The complaint was that some of their officers had salaries from two Services, as was shown by foot-notes to the Estimates. He must remind the Committee, however, that this was a great improvement on the old practice, because originally it was complained that officers in receipt of considerable salaries appearing in the Estimates were also in receipt of large salaries of which the House knew
  572
  nothing whatever. It was, in consequence of that, decided to put in a footnote any addition to the salaries of these officers from whatever source, in order that the House might, as far as possible, be in possession of the fullest information. In the present case, objection was taken to the amount payable to the gentleman who acted as auditor of the Water Companies. It must, however, be understood that this officer was appointed distinctly in the interests of the public. As the Committee was aware, on the amount of the profits of the Water Companies depended, to a considerable extent, the price of water, as they were compelled to reduce the price of water if their profits exceeded a certain amount. It was necessary, therefore, that someone in the interest of the public should examine these accounts, and, consequently, this gentleman had been appointed, who, it must be remembered, was not paid by the public, but by the fees taken from the Water Companies. Next year he hoped he should be prepared more fully to explain these Estimates.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, they would all be inclined to grant to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) the indulgence he reasonably claimed; and it would certainly be asking too much from him to expect that he should be in a position to defend all the items of the Estimates. At the same time, he (Mr. Rylands) wished to point out that the complaint he made against this system was not that as a result of it any charge was made against the Revenue, because quite clearly, in the case at any rate of this auditor, the payment justly came out of the pockets of the Water Companies. Also, the services performed were in the interests of the public. He had, however, often urged that their Public Offices were over-manned, and that a larger number of clerks were employed than were absolutely necessary for the fulfilment of the public work. That suspicion was very strongly confirmed when they found that in so very many of the Votes gentlemen occupying positions in Public Departments were able also to undertake other duties of a different character, for which they were paid in some instances large salaries, the duties of which they were sometimes able to perform in the time for which the country was voting them salaries.

  573
  This point was not at all met by the answer of his right hon. Friend that much of this work was done out of office hours, because if hon. Gentlemen would look at the Estimates, they would see that it was not always the case. He thought this point might very justly be recommended to the attention of the Government, and he hoped there would be a very careful inquiry, not merely in this, but in all Departments, to find out whether the number of clerks was not so great that in many instances their time was not fully employed. The Committee was certainly in a far better position to judge of this matter than it was in former years, for they had now much fuller information given them than previously. This extra duty was really regarded as a sort of patronage given to certain favoured clerks. Some of these gentlemen were paid £300, £400, and even sometimes £1,000 a-year for extra services required of them, and, of course, these posts were positions which those gentlemen were very anxious to obtain. While he was quite ready to pay all clerks fairly and fully for their services, he thought it was very objectionable that more should be employed than were necessary for the Public Service, or that any of them should employ the time for which the money of the country was paid in other work.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKbegged to call attention to the item "Surveyors." They would find that the gentlemen employed by the Department were nearly always naval officers, as was seen by the footnote which showed that most of them were in receipt of a Navy pension. He found that friends of his who had done every kind of work in the Mercantile Marine, and men who had been all over the world, were ignored in the competition for posts of this kind, and they were constantly given to naval men. He hoped that this would not always be the case, and that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) would do something to throw this office open to other men who had also served their country well, and who had, it might be remembered, no pension at all. He hoped also that his right hon. Friend would turn his attention to the question of the Corn Returns, about which there was great complaint that they were not properly made. Country people were, of course, not so clever and wise as others; but still they
  574
  had their little complaints, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would attend to them also, and not be under the impression that all the wisdom in the country was concentrated in Birmingham and the large towns.
  MR. SHAWfelt very strongly that the item for law expenses required further explanation. They seemed to spend something like £16,000 a-year, although they had a large legal staff permanently employed in giving advice. He knew, of course, that a great part of it was in connection with merchant shipping; but he should have thought a great part at any rate of the money so expended should have been re-paid by the merchant shippers, and he did not see why the country should pay for it. They always had these discussions on these Estimates; but he did not remember ever since he had been in the House that a single £1,000 had been struck off in consequence, and he looked upon the discussions as a great wate of energy; yet he was also of opinion that any men of business, looking over those Estimates and having a fair opportunity to cheek them, would be able to knock off at least 35 per cent. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who was capable of initiating very great improvement in many ways, that he would do an immense benefit to the country if he would extend his labours into other Departments, go through all these Estimates, and endeavour to save something on what were, perhaps, individually small things, but which, nevertheless, told up to a considerable amount in the affairs of the country. He would suggest that, at the beginning of next year, a Committee of business men should be appointed to go through these Accounts, and he believed they would thus be able to effect very great savings. On the other hand, they might go on year after year, as they had been going on for the last 50 years, criticizing the matters that were annually laid before them without making the least saving. The item of "Collecting Statistics," might, he thought, be removed. In Ireland all that work was done by the police officers; and he did not see why in this country the work should be thrown on the Excise, and additional expense be so incurred.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £24,305, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
  MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he should like to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to one or two matters in connection with this Vote, as he had long been of opinion that this was an improper charge on the Public Revenue. At two different times, Resolutions had been passed in that House to carry into effect that the cost of this Commission should no longer be borne by the Consolidated Fund, but the suggestion had never been carried out. It had been suggested that the endowed schools and other eleemosynary charities might pay something equivalent to the Succession Duty or Income Tax, and the late Government brought forward a Bill on the subject; but it met with such powerful opposition that they had to abandon it. He hoped, however, that another year this proposal would receive the careful consideration of the Government.
  MR. GREGORYobserved, that recently very large amounts had been transferred from private charity trustees to the Charity Commissioners, in order to free those gentlemen from the position in which they stood. The Commissioners, therefore, now had a very large amount of money under their control; and it did seem to him very unfair that these funds should contribute nothing to the expense of the Commission and that the country should have to bear the whole amount. Individually, the amount they would have to pay would be but a very small one, and it would be a perfectly just tax upon the charities in return for the security which they obtained from the Commissioners.
  MR. RAMSAYalso agreed that endowed schools, or other charitable foundations, ought to pay something of the expenses of their management, in order to provide a sufficient sum to meet this expenditure. It certainly was not desirable that a charge of this kind should be placed upon the Imperial Treasury, when they had full information to show that the charge would not affect the charities to any appreciable extent. He therefore hoped the Government would consider the expediency of having this charge transferred from the Imperial Treasury.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It will be sufficient to say, with great brevity, that I do not think it is expected of us that we should now go into any detailed answers in respect to these subjects; but I certainly most confidently hope, before 12 months have elapsed, that when we approach this Estimate we shall approach it in a very different way.
  MR. COURTNEYremembered that one of the first acts of the late Administration was to abolish the then Endowed Schools Commission, and to attach the remaining work to the Charity Commission, and since that time the rate of progress of this Department of the Charity Commission had certainly been inconceivably slow. He had made a calculation to show that, at the present rate, at least 100 years must elapse before the schools would be thoroughly re-organized, As a proof of the capacity of the Commission, he might mention that one great foundation in the immediate vicinity of London—Dulwich College—for which a scheme had been elaborated by the late Commission before the Dissolution in 1873; but, although that was so, that scheme had never up to the present day been perfected. He did not know whether his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) would be able to promise in the near future any better progress in this matter; but he did hope that the Vice President of the Council, or whoever had the superintendence of this Department, would set the officials to work, as the present rate of progress was most discreditable. He hoped there would be some pressure put upon the Department to insure that these gentlemen did some work in return for the salaries which were paid them.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKwas also strongly of opinion that the charities should bear the expense of their management in some form or another.
  MR. BRANDasked whether any information could be given in respect to Christ's Hospital?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had that moment come in; and he was, perhaps, the more proper person to answer these questions. But as he was nearly as incapable of answering them as he (Lord Frederick Cavendish) himself was, from the short time in which they had both been in Office, it would hardly be fair, perhaps, to ask him to

  577
  undertake the task. To some extent he certainly sympathized with his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) in his disappointment at the slowness with which the great work of re-organizing the endowed schools had been proceeded with. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), when introducing his Endowed Schools Act at the commencement of the last Parliament, made some very severe remarks with regard to the Endowed Schools Commissioners, and complained that they had not made such progress as they might have done. At any rate, he (Lord Frederick Cavendish) thought that the work of those Gentlemen would compare not unfavourably with the work of their successors. At the same time, he did not wish to be too severe on those Gentlemen, for anybody who had ever had anything to do as governor or trustee of any charity knew the difficulty of such work as this. He hoped, however, that these remarks would have some effect, and that something might be done which would produce a little more satisfactory results.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDwished to warn the Committee against taking any hasty or sudden action in regard to the Commission. At present, a great many trustees came to them from the country, because they knew they would be met with consideration and justice, and not put to expense; but if a sudden change were made which would increase the difficulties the work of the Commission would be retarded.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he only asked that these institutions should pay the expenses incurred by the Government in their management.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £21,065, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that for several years they had been accustomed to have a division on this Vote; but this year he was happy to know it would not be necessary, as they had received an assurance from the Government, in reply to a Question from himself, that for the
  578
  future the salary that had been voted to the late Lord Hampton would not be required. He, therefore, would move that the Vote should be reduced by £1,800, as he understood a small part of the salary had already been paid.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £19,265, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."—(Mr. Anderson.)
  MR. RYLANDSexpressed his great gratification at the reduction. He wished, however, to call attention to another amount at page 101—namely, that paid to the assistant examiners who were already paid for their official work. Before that Vote was allowed next year, more details would have to be given of that expenditure. It might, of course, be open to explanation; but on the face of it, it was not satisfactory that for the fulfilment of duties which were extremely important they should be called upon to pay large sums distributed among clerks already receiving heavy salaries.
  MR. BYRNEcomplained that fees were taken from persons presenting themselves for examination in the form of stamps; and as the sole object of these examinations, he understood, was to obtain the best men for the Public Service, he was of opinion that the Government should put a stop to such fees being imposed, and that the Order in Council of the 22nd March, 1879, ought to be rescinded.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had very great pleasure in accepting the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The payments made to the assistant examiners were for services rendered out of official hours. At times there was a great deal of work to be done in connection with these examinations, and at others next to nothing. It would, therefore, be impossible to employ gentlemen specially for the work. He believed the work was economically done; but he would take an opportunity of inquiring and explaining more fully next year. With regard to the fees for examination, he entirely agreed it was very objectionable that heavy fees should be

  579
  charged which would have the effect of limiting the number of persons entering into competition; but, at the same time, a small fee was not objectionable, and was, in fact, desirable, in order to prevent persons entering themselves who had no sort of competence or capability for the work. If there were no charge made for the examination, the Commissioners might be put to very great inconvenience by the enormous number of persons who would present themselves for examination without having any qualification for the work.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLpointed out that a considerable amount was paid for work done out of hours, and suggested that when a part of a man's work was performed within fixed hours, and another part during overtime, the former was likely to suffer in favour of the latter. He did not say that that was so in this particular ease, and he was confident that the Government would look to the matter before another year.
  MR. GORSTsaid, no doubt the matter would be carefully looked into by the Government, and no doubt, also, it would be found that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had discovered a mare's nest. The fact was that there was a frequent necessity for examinations on technical matters. For instance, owing to the wise arrangement of the Public Service, any Dockyard labourer or skilled workman who wished to pass into a higher grade had to pass an examination, not only in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but also in some technical subject connected with his Department. Of course, there could not be maintained a number of technical examiners to examine two or three workmen at a time; and, therefore, the natural and cheap way was to get some of the officers of the Dockyard to conduct those examinations. No doubt, it was the payment of these officers which had excited the jealousy of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy; but he (Mr. Gorst) was quite sure it would be found there was no abuse, and that the charge was a reasonable and proper one.
  MR. SEXTONremarked that £4,000 was put down for expenses of military examinations, and desired to know whether any fee was charged to those candidates, such as was charged in the case of civilians; and, if so, what was the amount of the fee?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was not able to answer the question at that moment; but if the hon. Member would repeat it on the Re-port he would be happy to answer it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Original Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  (12.) £12,668, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he thought the Commission should be so conducted as to be no longer a charge on the State. He found that £8,000 was contributed by persons who derived the benefit of the Commission, and £8,000 had to be levied out of the taxation of the country. He should be glad to find that this Commission was treated in the same way as the Charity Commission.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the circumstances of the two Commissions were not exactly similar. They were all desirous to make this Commission self-supporting; but there was a difficulty in the way, because the probability was that if they raised the charges they would diminish the business of the Commission.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £6,190, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts, Imprest Expenses.
  (14.) £42,017, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he did not rise to object to the Vote; on the contrary, he thought no Department did better work than the Exchequer and Audit Department; but he wished to urge that the accounts of the several Departments of the Civil Service should be put before the Committee in a more complete manner. No doubt, the present form was one prescribed by the Treasury under the powers given to that Board under the Exchequer and Audit Act, and so far the Audit Department was bound by that Order; but it was in the highest degree objectionable to interfere in this way with the independent action of the Auditor General of the Kingdom. The accounts of the Army and Navy were given in a more detailed form; and in consequence, in

  581
  some degree, of that detail, the expenditure of the Army and Navy had increased in a much smaller proportion than that of the Civil Service, which during the last 20 years had nearly doubled. But even in respect to the accounts of the Army, there were most objectionable accounts of large sums lumped together for classes of Service, instead of for each Service. He was glad to bear testimony to the efficient manner in which the Auditor General performed his duties. That officer had been 14 years at the head of the Department, and had carried on his duties with a great deal of tact and independence.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthoroughly agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir George Balfour) as to the value of the services of the Auditor General and the Department generally. The system of accounts for the Civil Service Estimates was laid down some years ago, after a most careful inquiry, and had been revised from time to time. Whilst the matter was considered every year by the Public Accounts Committee, great improvements had been made in the system; and the amount of service done by the Exchequer and Audit Department was worthy of all praise. At the same time, care must be taken not to overload a Department which had every year additional work thrown upon it. He would, however, bear in mind the suggestion which had been thrown out.
  Vote agreed to.
  (15.) £4,638, to complete the sum for the Friendly Societies Registry.
  (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £318,417 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in aid of Local Taxation."
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved the reduction of the Vote by £100,000, for the purpose of giving the Government an opportunity of stating their intentions with regard to Scotch medical officers. For his own part, he would prefer that the English grants were diminished rather than the Scotch grants increased; for he believed that those grants in aid
  582
  did not tend so much to economizing the relief to local taxation as was generally supposed. He was informed that a case had occurred in the West of England, where the local authority found a medical officer who was quite willing to discharge the duties for a salary of £30, and the Local Government Board were quite satisfied of his ability. But the Local Government Board could not entertain the idea of a medical officer taking such a small salary; and they intimated that unless the salary were raised to at least £50 they could not grant any part of the amount. Accordingly, the local authority had to raise the salary to £50, and they got from the Local Government Board a return of £25, making a saving to the local authority of £5, at an expense of £25 to the Public Exchequer. Therefore, he wished to point out that those grants in aid did not always bring a benefit equal to the increasing charge upon the country, and ought to be very strictly watched. The subject of the grant in aid of medical officers in Scotland had been under the consideration of the House for several years past. The Scotch Members had urged it over and over again, and very definite promises were made upon it by the late Government. He hoped the present Government would be able to make a definite statement.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £218,417, he granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in aid of Local Taxation."—(Mr. Barclay.)
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, it was extremely desirable that this subject should be fairly considered at the present time. The Scotch Members had appealed in vain to the late Government during the last six years to redress what they considered an injustice to the people of Scotland. The ratepayers of that country were made to pay, not only the amount paid for medical officers from the rates, which was relieved simply by the sum of £10,000 allocated amongst them, but they had, in addition, the whole burden of the maintenance and education of pauper children. In England, £35,200 were voted to enable the pauper children in the various

  583
  Unions of that country to be educated at the expense of the Imperial Treasury. But the relief of the English ratepayers was not restricted to that, and the further sum of £135,000, for there were £32,000 given for the Medical Department, whilst there was no corresponding grant in relief of the Scotch ratepayers. He conceived that there could not be the slightest justification for inflicting on the poorer of the two countries the additional burden, when the ratepayers in the richer country were to that extent relieved. Besides, in his opinion, the present system of workhouse schools, and the £35,000 that was paid for the education of pauper children, was a radical injustice to the children themselves. It was simply doing what they could to perpetuate the pauper class as a separate class in society, and to imbue them from their childhood with the feeling that they were to depend on the State for their future subsistence. Nothing could be more detrimental than that system; and he would suggest that an early opportunity should be taken of calling the attention of the Guardians throughout the country to the propriety of placing the pauper children in schools where they would be educated with other children, and a chance given them to emerge from the state of pauperism. It was not the fault of the children that they were born of pauper parents; and surely it could not be right to stamp their fate indelibly upon them by educating them in workhouse schools. It was not a service to the ratepayers, but a positive injustice, to permit and encourage such a system. As to the claims of Scotland, they were promised consideration by the late Government, and had they remained in Office they would have got some concession at this time. But up to the present the proposal had always been coupled with a condition that the Scotch Members should accept certain modifications in the Poor Law of Scotland, which the Scotch people had always objected to, and rather than accept the increase on conditions which they regarded as an injustice the Scotch ratepayers preferred to go without the additional grant. It was on those grounds that it had been hitherto refused; but he should be glad to know whether any ground could be stated by the present
  584
  Ministry for perpetuating that injustice? He hoped the same policy would not now be attempted, and he could not conceive why the Scotch people should be so unfairly treated, unless, indeed, it was that they were the friends of the present Ministry, and he did not think that was a very tangible ground for treating them badly. The total amount of grants in aid in England for the objects he had enumerated was £280,273, as against £10,000 in Scotland. The population of the latter country was about one-seventh of the population of the former, and was entitled to at least a seventh of the same amount of grants. If there was any difference, a somewhat greater proportion of relief should be given to the poorer country. This subject had been a matter of complaint for years, and he hoped it would not need to be renewed in future.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he was rather surprised at the statement of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), who argued that this money ought not to be paid in England, whilst he pleaded that it should be paid in Scotland. That was a curious way of putting the matter; however, he agreed very much with what the hon. Member said as to the conditions of workhouse schools. The children got an inferior education in those schools, and were bred up to pauperism; and he contended now, as he had done over and over again, that they ought to be educated in the ordinary schools, in the parish in which the workhouse was situated, with the other children.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTthought there could be no doubt that the children would be much better provided for if they were boarded out or sent to public schools. But that which was true of the majority of the workhouse children was, unfortunately, more true of the Catholic children, in whose case the evils of workhouse training were intensified. In spite of all efforts of the authorities, the Catholic children in workhouses in this country were in a position of inferiority, and subjected to a hostile system. He thought they should all be sent to industrial schools, where provision was made for them, or boarded out.
  MR. ANDEESONsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) wished to confine the discussion to his view of

  585
  the question, as to the passing of this Vote. He must admit the form in which the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) raised the question was not very convenient; hut it should be remembered that it was impossible to raise the question involved in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Forfarshire when the Scotch Vote was reached, because it was not competent to a Member of the Committee to propose any addition thereto at that time. Scotland had received, for a good many years, an amount of £10,000 only for the medical relief of their poor, when, according to the English scale, they ought to have had £40,000 or £50,000 per annum. The Scotch Members had pressed this upon the late Government time after time, and had received the most distinct promises that the matter should be attended to. All that was necessary to this end was a Treasury Order; but they had insisted upon including it in a Bill, which contained so many questions of Poor Law reform that it was impossible for the Scotch Members to agree to the passing of the measure. Upon this pretence, the late Government had kept them out of that extra payment to which they were entitled for a number of years. He thought this was a favourable opportunity for the present Government to make known their intentions as to this subject.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the people of Scotland were very tenacious of their rights in cases where they believed they had a real grievance; and he wished to point out that it had been admitted, year after year, by the late Government, that such grievance existed. The remedy, however, had been long deferred, and they had done no more than introduce a Bill dealing with large matters quite outside the financial question. The feeling with regard to this subject in Scotland being so strong, it was to be hoped that they would receive from the present Government an assurance that it should be fairly considered, and that justice should be done without delay.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was obliged to protest against the remarks of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) as to the allusion to nationalities in questions of this kind. The Scotch Members had no other mode of bring-
  586
  ing to the notice of the Committee the injustice done to Scotland except by pointing out the different manner in which this question was dealt with as between the two countries, England and Scotland. They proposed a reduction of the grant, in order to elicit from the Government a declaration that they should not be continued in that invidious position; and when they proposed to do away with grants in aid he had no doubt that there would be a large majority of Scotch Members to support that Motion; but so long as they were made to pay more than a fair proportion of Imperial taxation, they had reason to expect from the Imperial Treasury, for local purposes, the same proportion for Scotland as was received by the people of England.
  MR. DODSONobjected to the proposed Amendment—first, because they were discussing Scotch questions upon an English Vote, and, the Scotch Members desiring an increase in the Scotch grant, they proposed that the English Vote should be reduced. No doubt, it was open to Scotch Members to point out to the Committee, when it was arrived at, the insufficiency of the Scotch Vote, which, in their opinion, existed. Again, the Scotch Poor Law was not under his supervision; and he was, therefore, not in a position to speak with authority upon that subject. However, as regarded the Medical Grant, he believed there was this difference between Scotland and England—namely, that the appointment of medical officers was compulsory in England, but not so in Scotland. A Bill had been brought in by the late Government which proposed that the appointment of medical officers should be made compulsory by the Scotch Parochial Boards, with the intention that if that were done there should be a claim to a corresponding grant on the part of Scotland. Since, however, he had been appealed to, he would make it his business to bring the matter under the notice of Members of the Government who were conversant with, and had to administer the Scotch Poor Law, in order to ascertain the differences in the treatment of England and Scotland; and if it were found that the latter had a fair and just cause of complaint the Government would do their best to remove it in one way or another. As regarded

  587
  what had been said of the children in workhouses, he agreed, to a great extent, to what had fallen from hon. Members; but he understood that there existed, at present, no opposition to the boarding-out of children, when there was a fitting opportunity. He hoped that the Committee would be satisfied with the observations he had made, and that the Motion for the reduction of the Vote would not be pressed.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he wished to draw attention to three items, amounting in all to £844, which would be found on page 112, under the heading of "Highway Department," and which applied to the turnpike roads in South Wales. It appeared to him very inconsistent that while those who lived in contiguity to those counties should be obliged to pay tolls, the expenses of the Government inspection should also be paid out of the National Funds. He did not wish to be understood to disagree with this charge in the Estimates; but merely to point out the unfairness of placing a charge upon one portion of the Kingdom on the National Funds, and in another part of the Kingdom for the same purpose upon the rates.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he did not wonder at the objection made by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham), because it was clear that this portion of the Vote, as it stood, was an anomaly; but he would point out that the inspection of the highways in South Wales were under a temporary Act of Parliament, which would soon cease to be in force.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, that although he did not consider that South Wales got the benefit of the custom referred to by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham), he should be glad to see any unfairness done away with, and South Wales assimilated in this respect to the rest of the Kingdom at large. With regard to the charge for the Medical Department of £1,900, he hoped that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would see his way to its discontinuance in this Vote. He would rather see a grant of money given to some recognized medical authority than to a roving Commission from this Department. He was glad to see that the attention of his right hon. Friend had been directed to the subject, and that the amount had already been reduced to £1,900 from the
  588
  original Estimate of £2,000. He hoped, however, that the Government would see their way to reduce the amount by a much larger sum.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he held that the grants in aid had always done harm to the country which received them. He earnestly hoped that these grants, now amounting to upwards of £5,000,000, would be done away with, and taxes now collected for the Imperial Treasury handed over to localities. In a few days a Return would be in the hands of hon. Members, showing 47 taxes which might all be given to suitable areas, and the amounts used fox-local services.
  MR. A. H. BROWNsaid, he thought that the Medical Reports would be better made by the officers of the Local Government Board than by any other person. He desired to know whether any steps had been taken in the matter of the pollution of rivers?
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he believed the amount spent in vaccine lymph in Ireland was very much less than that spent in England and Scotland. Smallpox had been hanging over the Metropolis of Ireland for a long time, and from the statistics it was manifest that the number of cases of recovery of persons who had been vaccinated was very much greater than in the case of those persons who had not been vaccinated. In England there were Inspectors to see that vaccination had been effective; in Ireland there were no such officers, and hence the operation was badly done and the whole practice discredited.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, with regard to the Amendment before the House, which related to a matter of very great importance, he should move that Progress be reported, unless the Government would say that the subject should be considered when the Scotch Vote was before the House, and that justice should be done.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it had been a practice for the last six years to make complaints in respect of certain sums and allowances under the Vote for the Local Government Board in England. The allowances had been, to some extent, increased of late, and it was desired to extend those allowances to Scotland. The Scotch local authorities, however, were not under the same restrictions with regard to

  589
  the appointment or removal of officers, nor with regard to schools; they were, in fact, free from the obligations of the English Poor Law system; and until Scotland was willing to submit to those obligations, they had no right to expect that the benefits of the Poor Law subventions should be fully extended to them. There was no obligation to extend them to Scotland, unless the whole Poor Law system was placed on an entirely now footing, which, as far as he knew, Scotch Members had never been willing to agree to.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  DR. LYONSsaid, that he hoped in future this Department would be more generally supported by the State. No doubt, it would be very desirable that the same facilities should be afforded to the Medical Profession in Ireland and Scotland that were enjoyed in England.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, that it had long been felt a great grievance that Scotland was treated differently to England with regard to this subject; a very much smaller grant was made to Scotland than to England. He hoped that the Government would see its way to making some arrangement on this question which would be satisfactory to Scotch Members. The question had been raised for many years, and it was time that the recommendations were carried out. He believed it was of the utmost consequence that something should be attempted to be done in the present Session.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that last year the District Auditors Act was passed, by which the District Auditors were paid out of the Imperial Funds. By means of stamps, however, about £22,000 would be received from the localities to meet the expense.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that he could not raise the question of increasing the Vote then; but unless an assurance were given by the Government that they would deal with the question, he should move that the Vote should be reduced by the sum allowed to England in respect of this matter.
  MR. DODSONsaid, that he could not increase the Vote then, and he had no
  590
  intention of proposing to do so on a sub -sequent occasion.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he must, therefore, ask the Committee to diminish the English Vote, in order to show his appreciation of the way in which his countrymen were suffering. He did not wish to offer any factious opposition towards a Government which he held in the greatest respect; but unless he had an assurance that the Irish case would be properly treated he must make the Motion. If the Government gave him an assurance that the Irish would be fairly treated he should be satisfied. It was of the utmost importance, as every medical man must know, that every step should be taken to stay the disease.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, that he could not allow this Vote to pass without calling the attention of the Committee to a very serious subject. No part of local government was more unsatisfactory than the management of the highways. From every part of the country complaints with respect to the present system arose. The Act which was passed in 1878 he could truly say was practically unworkable. Some change ought to be made in this matter; and unless it were done, he proposed, on an early day, to bring the subject before the notice of the House. At the same time, he could not allow this Vote to pass without stating that, in his opinion, the subject required careful amendment, and he hoped that it would receive it at the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) had taken upon himself to state that the Highways Act of 1878 was unworkable. He begged to assure him that it was only in the county of Bedford that such could be the case, for in other counties it had been found to work well. He could quote instances of numerous counties where the Act had been found extremely useful. No doubt there were difficulties surrounding the working of the Act; but they were very small parts of a very large system. The whole of the Highway Law required to be amended, and he trusted that it would be. The task, however, would be a difficult and a lengthy one, and would give rise to a serious amount of opposition. He had great pleasure in saying that the Act of 1878, so far as it went, worked ex-

  591
  tremely well. He thought that that fact would be acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government if they looked into the matter.
  MR. PELLsaid, that he could not hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) state that the Highway Act worked in a satisfactory manner without informing the Committee that, so far as his experience went, it worked in an extremely unsatisfactory manner. It caused a great amount of discontent and dissatisfaction, founded, he believed, upon reason, at any attempt to put the Act into force. In one county in England with which he was acquainted an attempt was made to work the Act; but he believed that the authorities had not yet found out a method to make it palatable to all. They might, perhaps, hope for better things from the present Government, and that a question which had been touched upon by the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) would receive that attention which he could not think that anything he might say would induce. He was sorry that there should be a necessity of raising the question upon the Estimates; but it was necessary to show their constituents that it was not lost sight of.
  MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) seemed to think that the Highway Act of 1878 was unworkable. In his opinion it was both unworkable and unpopular, not only in Bedfordshire, but, he believed, in every county in England; and he hoped that the question would be dealt with in a trenchant fashion by Her Majesty's Government.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, that he desired to impress upon the Government the necessity of dealing with the matter. The Highway Law at present was in a far from satisfactory state, and it was time something should be done.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £310,617, to granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in aid of Local Taxation."—(Mr. Dawson.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he understood the hon. Member for Carlow
  592
  (Mr. Dawson) to complain that there was a great deal of small-pox in Ireland. He must acknowledge that he had not yet heard that there was any fear of the outbreak of small-pox in Ireland. It might, however, be the case; and he might assure the hon. Member that the Government had every wish to examine into the matter thoroughly. They could not, however, make any proposal to increase the Vote until another year. If the hon. Member apprehended that there was any great danger of small-pox breaking out in Ireland, then he could represent the matter to the authorities.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that this subject had been raised by a distinct Motion on nearly all occasions recently that the Vote had been taken. Irish Members had been compelled to move to reduce the Vote in England, simply because they had no power to do anything else. It was almost impossible to get Irish grievances of this kind redressed, because during the time that the late Government, at any rate, was in Office, the Chief Secretary for Ireland promised to take the matter into consideration on each occasion, but never did so. It had been brought forward, over and over again, and the right hon. Gentleman had promised that attention should be paid to it; but the next year the matter was in the same state. How could they tell that before that time next year there might not be a fresh outbreak of smallpox in Ireland producing such frightful misery as occurred two years ago? There were indications that small-pox was likely to become epidemic; and, therefore, he asked the Government to consider the subject at once. If it were found, upon local evidence, that it was necessary that the grant in favour of vaccination in Ireland should be increased, he hoped that the Government would do it this year and not wait for next. The matter was a small one, but of excessive importance.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was peculiarly qualified to give information upon the subject, for he possessed considerable professional experience. If he could give him facts upon the subject, he should be happy to consider them and do his best in the matter.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that he would like to point out to hon. Members from

  593
  Ireland that last year the operation fee for vaccination paid to the Medical Profession was raised from 1s. to 1s. 6d. or 2s. 6d. With regard to vaccination, he could only say that a few years ago Ireland was represented to be one of the most healthy countries as regarded freedom from small-pox, and that it was vaccination which had secured its immunity from that disease. Since that date, although they were assured that the population in Dublin was vaccinated up to 98 per cent, yet they had had one of the most terrible epidemics of small-pox that had happened in recent years. His conclusion was, not that they wanted more vaccination, but an inquiry into the local causes that caused small-pox. He heard from various quarters that there were matters of health which ought to be attended to in Dublin. He heard that there were circumstances connected with health generally in. Dublin which, he ventured to suggest, were closely connected with this outbreak of small-pox. He trusted that his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) would not press his Amendment; but if he did, he should certainly vote with him, for he was disposed to think that this country was over-vaccinated.
  MR. M. BROOKSsaid, that there were many things connected with public health in Dublin which were to be complained of, and there was great need of sanitary improvement in that city. He hoped that the hon. Member for Garlow (Mr. Dawson) would not go to a division upon his Amendment, because, although the facts he had adduced could not be resisted in favour of raising the grant in Ireland, yet they did not go to prove that the grant for English purposes should be reduced. When they came to the Irish Votes he would have an opportunity of raising the question of increasing the grant for Ireland.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that he was satisfied with the expressions of opinion from the Government, and begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  HARES AND RABBITS BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in rising to ask leave to introduce a Bill for the better protection of the Occupiers of Land against injury to their crops by Hares and Rabbits, said, he would follow the well-established Rule of the House, by stating briefly the object of the measure on the Motion for its first reading, and by avoiding controversial matter which might be involved in the question. He thought the House would agree with him that the time had arrived when something should be done to protect the occupiers of land against the grievances of which they had so long complained. That those grievances existed no one could doubt, and they had been abundantly proved before the Select Committee of 1872–3, by which recommendations of great importance had been made. Nevertheless, the whole of the last Parliament had passed without any attempt at carrying these regulations into effect, or to deal with the question of game. At all events, a great number of those grievances still remained unredressed. Of course, there was a very large and wide view to be taken of the subject—that was to say, the social aspect of the Game Laws generally, which was, no doubt, a very large question, and would have to be dealt with at a future time. The measure, however, which he was about to ask leave to introduce was of a more limited scope; it did not profess to deal with the Game Laws generally, but merely with game as it affected the relations of the owners and occupiers of land. He thought it would be admitted that the grievance of tenant farmers with reference to game had been long in existence, and had remained without adequate remedy up to that time. They had been brought before the Committee in 1872 at very great length, and the greatest of all grievances unquestionably was stated to be the ravages of ground game upon the crops of the farmer. He had said that the measure did not deal generally with the question of the Game Laws; but it would be seen that if they dealt with the ground game they would be dealing

    595
    with the greater part of the evil. There had been various remedies proposed for the evils caused by ground game before that time, and it had been suggested that hares and rabbits should be taken out of the category of game altogether. But objections were taken to this, and it was said great disorder would be produced thereby, and that there would be trespassing all over the land which would be equally injurious to both owners and occupiers. Another remedy had also been proposed by a very eminent person (Mr. Clare Read), who came before that Committee and stated in what capacity he appeared. In answer to the question, "Have you been requested to give evidence before this Committee?" he replied—
    "I was requested by the Central Chamber of Agriculture to give evidence before this Committee; the Central Chamber of Agriculture is composed of 99 chambers and branch chambers, and has a total constituency of 18,000 members."
    The next question was, "Those members are owners and occupiers, are they not?" Answer—
    "Yes; the last resolution on the Game Laws was on the 4th of April, 1871, and it was to this effect—that none of the Bills then before Parliament were sufficient for the purpose of curing the evil of over-preservation of ground game; but that an Act, embodying the principles of the 3rd Clause of Mr. M'Lagan's Bill and the 4th Clause of Mr. Loch's Bill, with some modification of the Law of Trespass, would be satisfactory."
    He then explained to the Committee what those clauses were by saying—
    "Mr. M'Lagan's Bill was for dropping hares and rabbits out of the game list. The clause of Mr. Loch's Bill was for the joint and inalienable right of the owner and occupier to kill ground game."
    Such were Mr. Clare Read's proposals. Further on, the Chairman (Mr. Ward Hunt) said—
    "I think we may now proceed to the next point involving the resolution of the Chamber of Agriculture—namely, that the provision in Mr. Loch's Bill should be made law, and that no landlord should have the right to reserve ground game to the exclusion of the tenant killing it. That is the effect of the clause is, it not?—A. I think it is the joint and inalienable right of the owner and occupier of the ground game that the landlord should not part with his right, and that the tenant should not part with his.—Q. I only want to understand your meaning that the 4th Clause of Mr. Loch's Bill should be embodied in a Bill—' It shall be lawful to any person employed by him, having his authority to kill hares and rabbits occupied by him,
    596
    subject to the provision: it shall be unlawful for any lessor and tenant, after the passing of this Act, by any lease or agreement between them verbally or in writing, or otherwise, to divest such tenant of the power to kill and take hares and rabbits, by this Act conferred upon him, or to restrict him in the exercise of that power; and any lease or agreement entered into, or made in contravention of this section, shall be void, and of no force or effect.'"
    That was the scheme of Mr. Loch's Bill, and of the recommendations of the Chambers of Agriculture, reported as a remedy for the evils in question. That recommendation, however, had not been adopted by the majority of the Committee; but it was supported by Mr. Dent, who was once a Member of the House, and who, he thought, hon. Gentlemen opposite would admit to be one of the highest authorities on the subject. He said—
    "Nearly all the English tenant-farmer witnesses, and many of those from Scotland, were agreed in recommending that such a right as he had referred to should be given by law to the tenant;"
    but he added that—
    "The difficulty of enforcing such statutory provisions is, no doubt, considerable, but by no means insuperable."
    Against it, he pointed out the natural repugnance to interfere with freedom of contract between landlord and tenant, and the opportunities there would be for evasion. But the Committee, on the other hand, said—
    "Your Committee have already recognized the advantages of such an arrangement when voluntarily entered into, and recommend it as the best means of securing an amicable settlement of the question, in the belief that it would meet the wishes of the class most seriously affected; and recognizing the fact that the Legislature has already interfered by law with freedom of contract, they are of opinion it should be enacted that no contract, lease, or otherwise, by which the tenant undertakes to forbear from the killing of hares and rabbits on the land in his occupation should be valid."
    Now, that was the principle which the Government were prepared to submit to the House as the proper principle to adopt in dealing with the question of game as between landlord and tenant. That principle was, he believed, perfectly well known to the farmers both of England and Scotland, Ireland and Wales. It was known in a formula which had been long familiar to them, and was the principle of the concurrent inalienable right in the tenant to deal

    597
    with, ground game—that was to say, hares and rabbits—on the land in his occupation. It was proposed, therefore, in the Bill, to ask that every occupier of the land should, as an incident of and during his occupation, have a right by himself and persons properly employed by him, to destroy ground game on the land, such persons not to be entitled to divest themselves of that right or to delegate it, and to exercise the right concurrently with and not excluding any person entitled to kill such game; that was to say, that if the landlord reserved the right to kill game he should keep it, but concurrently with the tenant, who would also have the right to kill game. It would be a concurrent right, and any contract, written or unwritten, whereby the occupier of land divested himself of such right should be made void in law, proper regard being paid to existing interests. The farmer would not be required, in order to exercise his right, to have a game certificate, and the fines imposed by the Act of William IV. for killing game would not apply. The principle was that the right to destroy animals which preyed upon the crops of the farmer should be inseparably incident to the occupation of the soil. The principle appeared to be a sound one, that where you place a man in occupation of the soil, you should not impose upon him conditions that practically made his occupation barren. It had been held that the presumptive right of game was in the occupier of the soil, and it was presumed that the effect would follow the law in that respect; but, as they all knew, it had not done so. Game had been separated from the occupation and even from the ownership of land and let over the head of the tenant. It was, therefore, plain that some effective measure of protection should be given to the occupier of the soil; and the Government had come to the conclusion which, as he had attempted to show, Mr. Clare Read, on the authority of the Chambers of Agriculture, had recommended as on the whole the best course which could be adopted; further, according to his experience, it was the course which the wisest and best landlords were following. If, therefore, legislation followed the practice of those who most wisely administered their estates, they might be assured that legislation was proceeding in the right direction. With
    598
    that explanation, he would now ask leave to introduce the Bill.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, as a Member of the Committee referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he wished to observe that although he had voted against the Resolution alluded to, he felt it his duty at that moment most cordially to support the Bill if it followed the lines which his right hon. and learned Friend had sketched out. At the time the Committee was sitting the scandal connected with the Game Question had arisen mainly from the over-preservation of game, on the part of about a dozen landlords. He remembered that the Committee were of opinion that the evidence laid before them might have some effect upon gentlemen who over-preserved game, and induce them to make a change in the right direction. He believed that the Report of the Committee had gone in that direction, and that the over-preservation of ground game had been very much reduced in subsequent years. But, since that time, they could not shut their eyes to the fact that the occupiers of land had had to contend with a new condition of things; and he himself was quite prepared to give them now a concurrent right with the landlord to destroy ground game. He failed to comprehend exactly the scope of the Bill of his right hon. and learned Friend; but if his right hon. and learned Friend gave to both landlord and tenant that concurrent right to ground game, he would cordially support the proposal; but it was necessary to bear in mind the possibility of the Bill going farther than this. There were evils to be guarded against in the case of the preservation of ground game by tenants as well as by landlords. There was a curious fascination about ground game; for no sooner did a man become entitled to the sole right of killing game, than those animals which all his life he had looked upon as his enemies he now began to regard as his friends. He warned his right hon. and learned Friend and the Government that it was quite possible to have over-preservation of ground game by tenants as well as by landlords. If any men were entitled to speak for the tenant, it was Mr. Clare Read and the hon. Members for Bedfordshire and Forfar, whose claim had always been for the concurrent and inalienable right between the landlord

    599
    and tenant—a joint right, which they should not part with under any circumstances, to destroy the ground game. He hoped his right hon. and learned Friend would not propose to go further than this; up to that point he would afford him his support, but beyond it he would not follow him one step, because he should thereby be making a very bad bargain for the occupiers of land.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, that few people would deny that the ravages of ground game were very much diminished during the last few years. In fact, in many cases, the grievance had, to a great extent, cured itself; and in these days of depression in agriculture, places which had been over-run by ground game had been given up, and the landlords had their farms upon their hands. At the same time, no one was likely to oppose a Bill that had for its object the prevention of the ravages of ground game, unless it interfered with the legitimate privileges and rights, not only of the landlord, but of the tenant. He did not altogether understand the effect of the proposed Bill, nor did he think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had exactly explained his meaning of the word "inalienable." At all events, he (Mr. Chaplin) had not gathered his meaning from the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend, who had spoken of it as a right that neither the landlord nor the tenant were to part with, and he had further defined it as a right of which neither party was to divest himself or delegate to another. He understood that neither landlord nor tenant was to delegate to anyone else the killing of his ground game. If, however, the landlord gave to the tenant the right of shooting all the ground game on land, in parts of the country where hares and rabbits increased very quickly, the tenant, according to the Bill, would have to kill them himself, and could not even hire another person to do so for him. If not, what was the meaning of the phrase? Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give the House some further information as to the term "inalienable" which he had used. If the Bill were likely to be useful he promised him no unfair opposition; but, so far from its being effective for the purposes which no doubt he had in view, he was afraid that its effect
    600
    would be rather to increase than to decrease the number of rabbits and hares.
    MR. BIDDELLsaid, with regard to the principle of the Bill the less said upon that subject the better, as it was quite clear that it was a principle to prevent a man doing what he liked with his own. Still, he was ready to swallow a good deal of principle, if he could get rid of a troublesome subject. He represented a county where there were thousands of acres of land, of which he had no hesitation in saying that it was more valuable for its crop of rabbits than for any other; and it would be necessary to have a clause in the Bill especially dealing with those poor lands where rabbits were the only produce of the soil. He trusted the Government would deal with that matter in a way satisfactory to all parties; and he fully believed that things might reach that stage when landlords and tenants might have a fair amount of shooting and still be protected against the evils of excessive game preservation.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he should like to express his satisfaction with the measure which had been introduced by the Government. He understood that the occupiers of land would have a right to kill the ground game, either by their own hands or by those of someone by their authority. That right, he believed, was to be inalienable; and he presumed that the landlord would have a corresponding right. In his opinion, that arrangement would be quite satisfactory to the tenants, and it seemed to him that the Bill met the difficulties of the ease and provided a full remedy. At the same time, he might say that he did not think that anything less than what was proposed would be of any service. Tenant farmers could not entertain the idea of compensation for the ravages of game. It was impossible to compensate them. The Government recognized that this burning question between landlord and tenant, which year by year had been brought before the House, required a settlement, and that some compromise should be arrived at. He thought it would be satisfactory to give the occupier of the land what was only reasonable, the right to protection from excessive damages by hares and rabbits. The course taken by the Government with regard to this measure reminded him of the Factory Act passed through the

    601
    last Parliament by the late Government. The employers and employed had been for many years divided in opinion as to the length of the hours of work; but a period at last arrived when parties became substantially agreed as to what should be done. The Government then stepped in, and fixed the number of hours to form the working week of the employed. So far as he could learn that Act had been found in his constituency to work satisfactorily, and to be a fair compromise between the employers and the employed. He thought that the proposal now made would be also satisfactory as a compromise between landlords and tenants. The tenant farmer would not object to a fair head of game being kept upon the farm; what he objected to was an excess of game. On behalf of the tenant farmers of Scotland be begged to thank the Government for the Bill which they had introduced, and which he believed would be found to be a most satisfactory measure.
    MR. PELLsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in introducing the Bill, had referred to the proposals made by the Committee which considered the subject. So far as his memory served him, he did not think that he voted for the proposal to confer an inalienable right upon the landlord and the tenant jointly. At the time he saw great difficulty in the matter; and he should like to know how the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended to work it out in detail? The manner in which the Committee dealt with this subject was to recommend that the protection given to rabbits by the Game Laws should be withdrawn. That proposal was put to the vote after discussion and carried, and formed part of the Report of the Committee. He might say that that Committee was composed of hon. Members from both political Parties. The late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael flicks-Beach) voted with him upon that occasion. He was still of opinion that the way he had indicated was the best method of dealing with ground game. The only exception made was that the same protection was given to rabbits in warrens that they now enjoyed. When kept in warrens, rabbits might be turned to very profitable uses. It was impossible to forget
    602
    the immense amount of mischief which the rabbit did upon the small class of farms. He was a most destructive little animal, although he could sometimes be turned to very valuable uses. If rabbits could be kept within proper bounds, and be prevented from wandering about destroying gardens and crops, they were very profitable to rear. He should be pleased if the present Government had endeavoured to give effect to that part of the Report of the Committee which dealt with this question. An inalienable right appeared to him to be rather difficult to deal with. The right must be either alienable or inalienable. What was to be done if an unhappy widow occupied a farm and had no relative who could enjoy the sport upon it? And was a landlord under similar circumstances to be in a like position? These were matters of detail, which it would be necessary to consider, and it would be extremely interesting to the House to see how they had been met. If an inalienable right of shooting was given to the occupier it must also be given to the landlord. That was a very serious thing, and if there were no other way out of the difficulty, perhaps it might be justifiable. But another way was suggested by the Committee—namely, by taking the rabbit from the protection of the Game Laws, and he certainly should have been better pleased if the Bill had adopted that suggestion.
    Mr. A. H. BROWNsaid, that in many parts of the country waste land was let to tenants for the purpose of rearing rabbits, which were kept in warrens under proper control. In that case, if he understood the proposal rightly, the Bill would give an inalienable right to the landlord to kill the rabbits, notwithstanding that he might have let the warren to the tenant for the sole purpose of rearing rabbits. If that were so, he did not see how the proposal could be supported. Was it absolutely necessary, where no crops were damaged by the rabbits, to confer an inalienable right of killing the game upon both the landlord and the tenant, or could not some other way be found to meet the difficulties of the case? As it was, the proposal of the Bill would prevent pieces of waste land from being utilized for the purpose of rearing rabbits. That seemed, to him to be one point in the Bill which required very serious consideration. In the case

    603
    of growing crops, he was glad that rabbits were to be put down; but where there were no crops difficulties ought not to be thrown in the way of rearing rabbits. It often happened that the rabbits which injured crops came from neighbouring premises. He did not see how the Bill would remedy the case where rabbits came from the land of adjoining owners. There were no means of destroying those rabbits where the preserve from which they came belonged to a different owner. He also wished to ask if the Bill was to affect Scotland? He wished particularly to press upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the case of rabbits upon waste land, and many parts of the sea coast, and in other places where rabbits were now reared to great advantage, as he feared that that would be put a stop to by the Bill.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, that a Bill had been brought in by the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. M'Lagan) for the purpose of dealing with this subject. He did not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Homo Department could have paid much attention to the Game Laws, for no one seemed to understand exactly what his Bill proposed to do. He understood him to say no measure had been passed during the six years the late Government had been in power. He forgot that the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire, being that of a private Member, was carried through with the help of the Government; and in that Bill the tenant farmers were given great facilities for procuring damages where their crops suffered injury from an excess of ground game. It seemed to him that although this Bill might work very well in the case of landlords who had many thousands of acres, yet it would be hard upon the small proprietor, whose right was taken away by the Bill. Very serious questions also arose with reference to the operation of the Game Laws and the principle of freedom of contract. There were many other questions which he thought would be also found to arise. In his opinion, the Bill would not receive that universal assent which seemed to be supposed. He was perfectly satisfied that when the Bill came to be considered, that, anxious as they were to support the right hon. and learned Gentleman so far as they could, yet he must not expect
    604
    them to be in favour of any measure which was in antagonism to this principle, that every man had a right to do what he wished with his own.
    MR. JAMES HOWARDsaid, that the hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had stated that ground game was an evil which was not felt so much as formerly, and which, in fact, was curing itself, and, therefore, legislation was becoming less and less needed. That might be true with respect to some districts; but he could say, from personal experience, that it was very far from being the case in other districts—he might say many other districts. So far as his observation went, ground game still constituted a great and widespread evil. The Bill before the House he thought was satisfactory; but until it was in the hands of Members its details could not well be discussed. As to freedom of contract in relation to game, there would be other opportunities of discussing this branch of the subject. There was no question that the Government had acted wisely in introducing the measure, and limiting the scope of the Bill to ground game, rather than in introducing a more comprehensive measure for reforming the Game Laws at large. He believed that the proposal of the Government would meet with universal favour from the farmers of England and Scotland.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, that as the sole survivor in the House of those Members who, in former years, had brought in more than once a Bill closely resembling that now proposed, he must congratulate the tenant farmers on finding their case at last taken up by the powerful advocacy of the Government, and on the kindly spirit in which the proposal had been received by the House. He understood the principle of the Bill, as described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to be that occupiers of land were henceforth to have inseparably connected with their right to growing crops the right to protect those crops from ground game. Of course, the difficulty of that arrangement was its interference with freedom of contract. To many hon. Members of the House, and particularly to Members of the Legal Profession, this might seem, at first sight, to be a departure from sound principle. But he thought that

    605
    it would be found, on looking more closely into the matter, that the proposal did not go beyond the analogy of previous cases where Parliament had limited freedom of contract, and that its practical effect would be to place the relations between landlord and tenant on a better footing. An hon. Member had remarked that the Committee, in 1873, did not recommend this proposal, but one to take rabbits from under the protection of the Game Laws. He did not think that any hon. Member who advocated the present proposal served upon that Committee. His own name was at first placed upon the Committee; but he retired in favour of the late Mr. M'Combie, a far better representative of tenant farmers, but one committed to total abolition of the Game Laws. It was in consequence of there being no one upon the Committee who was in favour of the proposal to give an inalienable right to the tenant to kill ground game that witnesses who came from Perth shire to support that proposal were imperfectly examined, and the Committee made another recommendation. He believed, however, that the present Bill would be more satisfactory to tenant farmers generally, and especially to those of Scotland, where the prevalence of leases for 19 years gave additional importance to the question.
    MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, that there were some points in the opening statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department which were rather ambiguous. He understood him to mean by an inalienable right that the tenant farmer should have a right to protect himself against the ground game on his farm. That right he, for one, was perfectly willing to concede. He also understood that the landlord was to have the power to kill ground game if he liked, and that it was to be equally impossible for the tenant and for the landlord to part with their right to kill the game. He did not understand that any rights were taken away from the landlord, but only that additional rights were given to the tenant. There was another point which was of considerable importance in Scotland. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to include moorland in the operation of his Bill, or was it to apply only to arable land? It seemed to him that the Bill
    606
    ought to be confined to agricultural land, for he was satisfied that if they gave the tenants of sheep farms in Scotland the right to kill hares and rabbits there would be very few shootings let, and that would be a very serious thing for Scotland. It was well known, moreover, that the amount of ground game upon a moor was almost nothing at all. That was a point which he thought was well worthy of consideration. He hoped that the Bill to be introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give some express definition of what he intended by arable land. If these matters were not very carefully dealt with, there would be a tendency in Scotland to do away with sheep farms, and to turn the land into deer forests. He did not want to see such a thing as that happen. He hoped that the grouse moors in Scotland would be protected, and he thought that it could be done without interfering with the principle of the Bill. It was the object of the Bill to protect arable land, and, so far, he gave it his most cordial support. He trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give his consideration to the points to which he had alluded.
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDONsaid, the difficulties raised by the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. E. W. Duff) were of a very important character. With regard to moor land, he thought it would be desirable that the Bill should provide that where the tenant was authorized to shoot he should not be also authorized to employ any number of persons to kill ground game.
    MR. D. DAVIESsaid, the Bill should have his cordial support. He had understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that the landlord and tenant were to have equal rights, which, he supposed, meant that when the landlord went to shoot birds he might shoot a hare or two as well. If the Bill became law, he thought that neither the landlord nor the tenant would henceforward have any disputes about hares, because the poachers would get them all. As far as the alleged decrease of rabbits was concerned, he believed this might be attributed to the wet weather, and that as soon as they had a hot season there would be as many as ever. He had been a farmer, and had seen a great deal of rabbits; he was now a landlord, and had the

    607
    greatest difficulty to get the tenants to kill the rabbits, which they did not like doing. Since hares were worth 3s. 6d., it was worth the while of the poachers to kill them, rather than engage in any other employment. But it was not the hares that the farmers in Wales complained of; they would be glad of a few more; it was the rabbits, which, although they were worth but 1s. 3d., cost the farmer at least 5s. each. Every practical man knew that 50 rabbits would spoil an acre of wheat or clover, by eating it before it became strong. He was glad the Government had introduced this measure, which should receive his support.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had not gathered from the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was proposed to extend the provisions of the Bill to Ireland, and should, consequently, be glad to receive information upon that point?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he regretted that he had not stated that the Bill was drawn, as was the case, to extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. The proposal, however, was that the occupier should have the right to destroy certain animals destructive to the crops, and that appeared to him to apply to all countries alike. With regard to the question asked by the hon. Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff), the subject of moorland was one which required very careful consideration, and should, he thought, be dealt with as an exceptional part of the Bill. As to the position of the landlord under the Bill alluded to by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac), the landlord would, in the case in which he reserved the right to the game on his property, be left in possession of that right as before, the concurrent right of the tenant to deal with the hares and rabbits being alone taken away, so that the landlord would have the winged game as well as the ground game. The hon. Member for Mid-Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had said he was unable to understand the use that had been made of the word "inalienable;" but be (Sir William Harcourt) had expressed that the tenant might kill game by his authorized servants. It was not intended to give the tenant a sporting right, but only a protecting right, nor was it intended that
    608
    the tenant should let that right, or make use of it for the sport of his friends. Where the landlord had reserved the right, the tenant was to have adequate means for the protection of his crops, and not the enjoyment of a sporting right, to be handed over to others. He would add that, where landowners had allowed the tenants to have the game, the Government proposed to leave the tenant in the same position as he was before, to deal with the game as he pleased, subject, however, to the restriction that he should not part with the inalienable right of killing hares and rabbits, which would be void in law.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill for the better protection of Occupiers of Land against injury to their crops from Hares and Rabbits, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GLADSTONE, Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Mr. DODSON, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, and Mr. ARTHUR PEEL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 194.]

  PRINTING.

    APPOINTMENT AND NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question,
    "That a Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in all matters which relate to the printing executed by Order of this House, and for the purpose of selecting and arranging for Printing, Returns and Papers, presented in pursuance of Motions made by Members of this House,"—(Lord Frederick Cavendish,)
    —put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Committee do consist of Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Mr. PARNELL, Mr. HERMON, Mr. MASSEY, Mr. DUNCAN M'LAREN, Mr. PEASE, Sir CHARLES RUSSELL, Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. SPENCER WALPOLE, Mr. WHITBREAD, and Mr. ROWLAND WINN:—Three to be the quorum."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he desired to draw the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to the fact that on more than one Committee recently appointed there had been very few Scotch Members. In the present case there was but one, and he sat upon the opposite side of the House. He had no objection to urge to the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. D. M'Laren.) It was, however, only fair, especially as the Conservatives were so sparsely represented, that they should have some voice on

    609
    these Committees, and he, therefore, asked the noble Lord to take the matter into consideration.
    An hon. MEMBER asked that an Irish Member might be placed upon the Committee.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that those who were charged with forming these Committees were always anxious that all sides of the House should be represented, which he believed was the case with the present selection. He assured the hon. Member that there was not the slightest desire to restrict the number of Members, but it was by no means an easy matter to complete the list.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Bill to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STAVELEY HILL and Mr. MONCKTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.]

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MORGAN LLOYD, Bill to make further provisions for securing the freedom of Parliamentary Elections, ordered to he brought in by Mr. MORGAN LLOYD, Mr. DILL-WYN, and Mr. COHEN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 191.]

    BANKRUPTCY LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir JOHN HOLKER, Bill to amend the Law of Bankruptcy; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to he brought in by Sir JOHN HOLKER and Mr. GORST.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 192.]

    GUN LICENCE ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Bill to amend "The Gun Licence Act, 1870," ordered to be brought in by Sir ALEXANDER GORDON, Mr. PELL, Mr. M'LAGAN, and Mr. MARK STEWART.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 193.]

    PRIVATE BILLS.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means laid upon the Table Rules for the Practice and Procedure of the Referees on Private Bills under Standing Order 88:—
    (Notice of objection to locus standi of Petitioners, how to be given.)
    1. The Promoters of any Private Bill, who intend to object to the right of Petitioners to be heard against the same, shall give notice of
    610
    such intention, and of the grounds of their objection, to the Clerks to the Referees and to the Agents for the Petitioners, not later than the eighth day after the day on which such Petition has been deposited in the Private Bill Office; hut it shall be competent to the Referees to allow such notices to be given, under special circumstances, although the time above limited may have expired. All notices shall be indorsed with the names of the Petitioners' Agents.
    (Notice of objection to locus standi may be withdrawn.)
    2. Parties who have given such notice as above, may at any time withdraw the same by giving notice in writing of withdrawal to the Clerks to the Referees, and to the Agents for the Petitioners.
    (Order in which cases shall be taken.)
    3. The cases shall be heard in such order as the Chairman of Ways and Means shall appoint, and according to a list prepared under his direction, and kept in the Referees' Office.
    (Certificate of appearance to be produced.)
    4. When a Bill is called on for consideration, the Agents for the Petitioners against the same shall be required to produce a certificate of appearance from the Private Bill Office, in which shall he stated the names of the Petitioners, their Counsel and Agents.
    (Notice of hearing to he given through the Private Bill Office.)
    5. Not less than one clear day's notice shall be given by the Clerks to the Referees to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, of the days on which the objections to the right of Petitioners to be heard will he severally taken into consideration by the Referees.
    6. All notices required to he given, or deposits to be made in the Referees' Office, shall be delivered in the said office before five of the clock in the evening of any day on which the House shall sit, and before one of the clock on any day on which the House shall not sit.
    7. Notices and grounds of objections, in cases of Locus Standi, will he deemed to have been sufficiently served upon Agents, if left at the Agent's Office before Six of the clock in the evening of any day, Sundays excepted.
    8. Two clear days at least before the day appointed for the consideration of any Private Bill by a Committee of which a Referee has been appointed a Member, a filled-up Copy of the Bill, as proposed to be submitted to the Committee, shall be deposited by the Agent at the Referees' Office, for the use of such Referee.
    9. Copies of all the Petitions, upon which Opponents of a Bill intend to appear before such Committee, shall also be deposited at the Referees' Office, by the respective Agents for the Opponents, two clear days at least before the day appointed for the consideration of the Bill.
    (Signed) LYON PLAYFAIR,
    Chairman of Ways and Means.
    House of Commons.
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several Lords. PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Burials (73).

NEW PEERS.
The Right Honourable Edward Lord Skelmersdale having been created Earl of Lathom in the county palatine of Lancaster—"Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
George Watson Lord Sondes having been created Viscount Throwley in the county of Kent and Earl Sondes of Lees Court in the said county—"Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Robert Lowe having been created Viscount Sherbrooke of Sherbrooke in the county of Surrey—"Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Eight Honourable William Francis Cowper-Temple having been created Baron Mount-Temple of Mount-Temple in the county of Sligo—"Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Edward Hugessen Knatchbull-Hugessen having been created Baron Brabourne of Brabourne in the county of Kent—"Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BUBIALS BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise in fulfilment of the promise made in Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne to submit to your Lordships a measure to put an end to the controversies which have arisen with respect to burials in churchyards and cemeteries. My Lords, it is a difficult subject; and I cannot anticipate anything like universal agreement upon it; but there are two points on which, unless I greatly deceive myself, it is not likely that there will be any difference of opinion. One is that it is desirable that this controversy, always of a painful character, should be terminated, and that some settlement should be arrived at; and the other is this—that the present state of the law relating to burials is anomalous and unsatisfactory, and one which cannot safely—I had almost said cannot possibly—be allowed to exist any longer. My Lords, what is that state of the law? It is this, and I venture to call it an anachronism, a contradiction of the times in which we live. There is a civil right of universal necessity and of great importance, a right of burial; and that
  492
  is fettered by conditions which are ecclesiastical, and which affect large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects in a manner inconsistent with the principles and practice of religious liberty. When the case is so stated there can be no difference of opinion, at least upon this point—that such a state of the law ought no longer to be allowed to exist. I have said—and it is, no doubt, the foundation upon which I proceed—that there is a civil right of burial belonging to all Her Majesty's subjects in this country. I know that there are persons who have sometimes taken upon themselves to controvert that statement of the law, acting under a belief which is based upon a misunderstanding of some scattered phrases which are to be found in a few of the books upon this subject. I do not, however, anticipate that anyone really acquainted with legal doctrines and principles will dispute my statement that the right, to which I have referred does exist, and that it is a civil and a temporal right, given by the custom of the Realm, and by the Common Law to all Her Majesty's subjects. If it would not detain your Lordships too long, I could quote from many ancient and undoubted authorities—from Bishop Gibson, from decisions of the Common Law Courts, and from decisions of that great Ecclesiastical Judge, Lord Stowell; but all that learning may be found digested in a well-known book, Burn's Ecclesiastical Law. Sir William Scott, in 1820, referred to these authorities, and asserted that the absolute right extended as far as, but probably extended no further than, mere interment of the corpse in the churchyard—that is to say, in consecrated ground. This law is not only established by the custom of the Realm, and by the Common Law, but it rests upon natural necessity and legal obligation. In one of the cases decided early in the last century, the law was enforced against a clergyman by the Court of King's Bench, by whom it was said that if that right did not exist there would be no place where a man who was not a landowner could be buried; and it was laid down by that Court, on more than one occasion, that a clergyman who refused burial to any parishioner was liable not only to ecclesiastical censure but to civil penalties, and might be proceeded against by indictment or information. Every householder is by law re-

  493
  sponsible for the burial of any person dying within his house, under penalties, and for taking the body to the churchyard when there is no other lawful place, and every clergyman obstructing the burial in the churchyard is also liable to penalties. It is sometimes said that the churchyard is the clergyman's freehold; but the clergyman only represents the property in the land in his corporate and official character in trust for others; and a learned civilian of the last century, whose opinion is quoted as an authority in Dr. Phillimore's edition of Burn's Ecclesiastical Lam, stated that the surface of the churchyard alone belonged to the clergyman, and that the interior part of the ground belonged to the parishioners for the purpose of burial. That view of the law has been enforced over and over again by statute. In 1808 a statute was passed with reference to the burial of the bodies of persons who had lost their lives through ships being wrecked at sea and which had been cast on shore, by which it was enacted that, without any inquiry as to religion or to nationality, they should be buried in the churchyard of the parish within which they were cast on shore. By another enactment in 1844, for the burial of poor persons in the receipt of parochial relief, it is provided that, without inquiry into their creed or whether they were or were not capable by ecclesiastical law of having the Service of the Church of England read over them, they shall all be buried in the churchyard of the parish in which they were chargeable, or in which they may die. There are by ecclesiastical law three classes of cases in which the Burial Service of the Church of England cannot be performed over the bodies of persons who are buried. In the first place, there is the class of excommunicated persons, to which I need not now more particularly refer, as the punishment of excommunication has fallen into disuse. Then there is the class of unbaptized persons; and, thirdly, there is the class of those unhappy persons who die by their own hands. With regard to the class of unbaptized persons, it includes not only those who by the negligence of their parents or otherwise die in infancy without being baptized, but also the numerous and important denomination of professing Christians in this country who call themselves Baptists, who do not administer the rite of baptism to children
  494
  before they come to years of discretion, and among whom many remain unbaptized after they have grown up, and are sometimes admitted, though unbaptized, to full Communion. The Society of Friends also does not regard baptism as necessary. By the ecclesiastical law of the country the whole of this numerous and important class of persons who may die unbaptized are incapable of having the Burial Service of the Church of England performed over their bodies, although they have a settled legal title to be buried in the churchyard—a legal title which was definitely settled a century and a half ago by the Court of King's Bench, in the case of the Vicar of Daventry, who had refused to allow the body of a woman of the Baptist persuasion to be buried in the churchyard on the ground that she was unbaptized. The principle on which he proceeded was, indeed, the denial of the validity of lay baptism—a question since ruled against his view by the Ecclesiastical Courts. But the Court of King's Bench, while compelling him to allow the interment—which he did, without any service—treated the point as to baptism, and the question whether she was entitled to the ministrations of the Church, as merely spiritual matters, of which a temporal Court could not take cognizance. With regard to the case of those unhappy persons who die by their own hands, your Lordships know that until lately there was a barbarous custom, by which a person against whom a Coroner's Jury had returned a verdict of felo-de-se was to be buried in the public highway, with indignities which I cannot bring myself more particularly to mention. This indecent state of things was altered in 1823, when Parliament enacted that the bodies of those unhappy persons should be buried by order of the Coroner in the churchyard after the hour of sunset, of course without the Service of the Church. My Lords, it appears to me that nothing could be more emphatic than the manner in which the Legislature has, by these several enactments, placed its stamp upon the doctrine that there is an absolute and indefeasible right of burial in the churchyard which belongs to every citizen of this country, without distinction of Church or Creed. That being so, I now come to the question of the conditions under which that admitted

  495
  civil right of every citizen of this country is granted by law; and when I state those conditions, I think that it will be apparent to everybody that there is now no alternative but either to take away the right altogether or to alter the conditions under which it is granted. One of these conditions is that the right of burial in the churchyard must be coupled with the performance over the body of the Burial Service of the Church of England in every case in which the ecclesiastical law permits that service to be used. Another is that, unless the ecclesiastical law permits that Service to be used, the interment must take place without any religious solemnity. As long as a deceased person was living, his civil rights and privileges were free from all ecclesiastical control; he was not compelled to accept any of the Services of the Church; but the moment he died—not he, indeed, for he had passed to a region where, happily, such questions are unknown, but his surviving relatives who shared his principles and feelings on religious matters, and have the same civil rights, are told—"Here your religious liberty stops; you must bury your deceased relative in the churchyard if you can find no other place"—which is not always possible, owing to distance and other reasons—"and if he is buried in the churchyard you must do so either in silence in the one case, or with the Service of the Church in the other." I am satisfied that there is an essential inconsistency in that state of the law, that it is not capable of argumentative defence, and must be altered in one direction or the other. And I do not believe that there will be found, if they speak their real minds, many Members of your Lordships' House, or many educated persons or thinking men in any class of society, who do not feel this to be a true and real grievance. When my noble Friend (Earl Granville) brought this question forward in 1876 he quoted the words of a Prelate whom, when he lived, we all admired, and many of us loved, and who was generally admitted to be one of the chief pillars of the Church—I mean Bishop Wilberforce, then of Winchester. I may be excused for reading again the words which were then read, and which, probably, may not be in the memories of many of your Lordships. Speaking on the 20th of June, 1871, the right rev. Prelate said—
  496
  "It was a great hardship to those who dissented from the Church of England, and who objected to the Services used by the Church over the dead, that they should he in any way compelled, as the condition of a parishioner's right to be buried in the churchyard, to have that Service read at the burial…If he were a conscientious Dissenter, and disapproved of the Burial Service of the Church of England, he should feel it a hard thing to be obliged, on bearing the body of his child to its last resting-place, to have a Service read of which he disapproved, and which was repugnant to his feelings. The Dissenters had a real grievance, which it was the duty of Parliament to redress."—[3 Hansard, ccvii. 293.]
  I myself, on the same occasion, read words to exactly the same effect, which had been published in a leading journal by Mr. Ridley, who was at that time acting as Secretary to a Society which had been formed for the purpose of resisting the Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Mr. Osborne Morgan. Mr. Ridley said he thought there was a real grievance; though his mode of dealing with it would have been different from that suggested by Mr. Morgan. Not long since, a near relative of a noble Friend whom I see before me (the Marquess of Salisbury) introduced a Bill in the other House on this subject—I allude to Mr. Balfour, the Member for Hertford, a man of great ability and promise of distinction, who is likely to take a leading position on the Conservative side of the House of Commons. Mr. Balfour, in his speech, distinctly admitted the existence of a serious grievance, and I believe there are very few people who are not conscious of it in their hearts. I need not go further, except to say that some persons have endeavoured, not to deny the existence of a grievance, but to extenuate its importance and gravity by saying that it is small, diminishing, and so on. I, on the other hand, think that the Parliamentary history of the question shows that this grievance is far from being either small or diminishing; and, further, I do not think that any grievance, whatever its nature may be, which depends upon principle, can ever merit such a description. It certainly is not so regarded by those affected by it; and in this particular case the persons affected are a very numerous, important, and powerful class of Her Majesty's subjects. It is a great mistake to suppose that a grievance may not be felt by great numbers of

  497
  persons who, nevertheless, submit to the law as it stands, and accept the conditions which the law imposes upon them, rather than, at a time of mourning and distress, when the best feelings of our nature are stirred to their foundations, enter into the region of religious or theological strife. I should like to know what any of your Lordships would feel in similar circumstances if the case were reversed, and the power of prescribing particular rites of burial, or otherwise denying all liberty of devotion in your churchyards, were vested in the Roman Catholics, or in any body of Protestant Dissenters from whose views you conscientiously dissented. What I think likely is, that you would submit and endure rather than raise a question and stir up strife over the dead body of your wife, sister, brother, parent, or child. But would you feel the sense of wrong and grievance which such a state of things imposed upon you to be the less because you submitted to it? Instances have from time to time come to our knowledge of persons who have endeavoured, sometimes at the risk of very indecent and miserable scenes, to escape from this state of the law. Sir Morton Peto mentioned, some years ago, a case of certain Primitive Methodists in Norfolk who had been prosecuted by a clergyman because, having said prayers up to the entrance to the churchyard, but not beyond it, and having committed their dead to the ground, at the close of the Church Service they sang over the grave a hymn which was, in itself, perfectly unobjectionable. He, at the same time, mentioned instances in which a great and trying inconvenience had been submitted to by members of the Baptist body rather than endure the existing state of the law; that of having to carry their dead to long distances for the purpose of interment. Few of your Lordships can have forgotten the unhappy scene which took place, not long ago, at the funeral of one who had served Her Majesty in one of the highest capacities on the Bench of Justice. In the debates which took place in this House in 1877, a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lincoln) mentioned the occurrence at Upchurch of unauthorized hymn-singing at a funeral in the churchyard by members of a sect calling itself the Peculiar People; and I have read accounts of other pro-
  498
  ceedings, not permitted by law, having taken place at funerals in several parts of the country, particularly Lancashire. Your Lordships may depend upon it that this is not a case in which you can put the question aside, or decline to accept the responsibility of dealing with it, on the ground either that it is no grievance at all, or that it is an unimportant and a diminishing grievance. I will now put very briefly before your Lordships the state of the question as far as its Parliamentary history is concerned. In 1824, when the Church of Ireland stood in a position similar to that in which the English Church now stands, Mr. Plunket, afterwards Lord Plunket, then Attorney General for Ireland, passed through the House of Commons, with the approval and support of Lord Liverpool and the Tory Government of the day, a Bill involving the principle for which I now contend, which provided—conditionally, no doubt—for the burial of Roman Catholics and Protestant Nonconformists in the parish churchyards according to their own rites and with their own services. That Act was, in the first instance, permissive, and depended upon the consent of the clergy; but in the year 1868 a second Act was passed through Parliament, without any serious opposition from the Conservative Party, converting into an absolute right that which had previously been a conditional privilege. Prom those two Irish Acts I pass to what has taken place with regard to the Burial Laws in England. In 1861 Sir Morton Peto brought in a Bill in principle identical with that of Mr. Osborne Morgan; and from that time to this, with the exception of four or five years, in which, from one cause or another, no measure was introduced, that and other Bills, or Resolutions to the same effect, have been continually before Parliament. In four successive years the House of Commons, and in three of them by a majority of from 60 to 70, affirmed the second reading of Mr. Osborne Morgan's Bill. It is true that in the last Parliament, in which we know that a Conservative Government had a large majority, which I suppose would not be overstated if I called it 50—Mr. Osborne Morgan's Bill or Resolutions to the same effect were three times rejected; but by what majorities? On the first occasion, in 1875, by a majority of 14; in the next year,

  499
  1876, by an increased majority of 31; and the third time, in 1878, by a majority of only 16—in a Conservative House with all the power and influence of the Government opposed to the Bill. One cannot be surprised to know, as one does know from declarations publicly made by men who voted reluctantly in, I think, one or more of those majorities, that they did so under a pressure which they resented, and of which they felt the impolicy and unreasonableness. I now come, my Lords, to what occurred in this House in two consecutive years—1876 and 1877. In the first of those years my noble Friend now Foreign Secretary moved a Resolution on the subject. I will not now refer to the terms of it, except to say that they were the same to which your Lordships afterwards agreed on Lord Harrowby's Motion; but I will remind your Lordships that it was rejected by a considerable majority—a majority of 56. In the next year the Government—who perhaps had contributed to that majority by intimating that they were likely to take up the question and endeavour to arrive at such a settlement of it as they could recommend—introduced a Bill dealing with the general subject of interments and the laws relating to burial in their relation to the public health. In that Bill was embodied a clause providing for a universal dispensation from the use of the Service of the Church, in favour of all persons who might object to it, and permitting, in all such cases, silent burial. My noble Friend thought that that was not a settlement of the question, and never could be; and accordingly he renewed, I think by a Motion on the second reading, the proposition he had made in the previous year. Again he was defeated, by the less considerable majority of 39. But, my Lords, when the Bill passed into Committee, a noble Earl—I do not know whether he is in the House, but one respected by all your Lordships, the Earl of Harrowby, as good a Christian and as sincere a Churchman as anyone who sits here—moved an Amendment to the Bill. Lord Harrowby was not defeated, for exactly the same number voted for and against his pro-position, and it only failed to pass in that stage by reason of the rule of this House in favour of the negative, when votes are equal. It was, in these circumstances, natural that the Motion should be re-
  500
  newed at a later stage. On the Report Lord Harrowby again brought it forward, and then, notwithstanding the opposition of the Government—an opposition so serious, so deliberate, that they abandoned the Bill in consequence of the vote which was taken—the proposition was carried by a majority of 16 in a House of 238. Those persons must have been blind, indeed, who could not see that in that state of things a settlement of the question was near. I may now tell your Lordships that the Bill which I am about to ask your Lordships to read a first time follows upon the main point, as to the remedy which it proposes to apply to the admitted grievance of our Nonconformist brethren, and by which it seeks to settle this painful and long-pending question, the principles, and, with only formal changes, the terms of the Amendment carried in this House on Lord Harrowby's Motion. I should not forget to mention, in passing, that some of the greatest ecclesiastical authorities in this House concurred with the majority on that occasion in thinking that mode of settlement to be just and prudent. What were, what are now, the alternatives? No one, my Lords, supposes it to be possible to take away the civil right. That, directly, has never been proposed. Something, no doubt, which has been imagined to be capable of producing the same effect substantially has been very often proposed and urged on grounds which I think I shall show your Lordships are fallacious. It has been thought that you might settle the question by providing separate unconsecrated burial-grounds everywhere for all Nonconformists. There are a great many objections to that proposal. The first is, that it is impracticable. How is it to be done? Do you think that, for the sake of avoiding the settlement of the question to which public opinion points, and to which all persons point who are aggrieved by the present law, Parliament will ever impose, upon all those parishes in the country which do not for any other reason endeavour to obtain them, the necessity of providing at their own or the public expense additional unconsecrated burial-grounds? I venture to say that the idea is entirely preposterous. It has, indeed, been proposed in several of the Bills which have been brought forward; for when I spoke of the earliest—those of

  501
  Sir Morton Peto and Mr. Osborne Morgan—and of the discussion in this House on the Motion of Lord Harrowby, I did not mention other Bills which have been brought in, one by my noble Friend the late Lord Steward, in 1871, which was supported by Bishop Wilber-force, and others, and afterwards by Mr. Talbot and Mr. Wilbraham Egerton, to provide separate and additional burial-grounds. But it has never yet been proposed to do this universally, or except by means so far optional, that, where the will is wanting, they must necessarily fail; and only one Bill of that kind—Mr. Marten's, to which I will presently refer—has ever become law. Besides these, there were Bills introduced by Mr. Balfour and Mr. Ritchie, following, one of them unconditionally, and the other conditionally, upon the consent of incumbents, the principle of Lord Harrowby's clauses. With respect to the Bills for establishing separate and distinct burial-grounds, I not only say that the remedy is impossible; but I take issue upon the question whether that remedy is desirable. I say it is not. I adopt the words in which Mr. Plunket, in 1824, rejected a similar proposal as bad in principle. He said—
  "The allotment of separate burial-places would not only, like the giving separate places of education, tend to strengthen the line of demarcation already existing…hut it would go to outrage the very commonest and yet most sacred feelings of humanity. It would have the effect, in many cases, of separating families as to their places of burial. A husband could not be buried with his wife, a brother near his brother, a father by the side of his son."—[2 Hansard, x. 1461.]
  I cannot, my Lords, forget a painful case that was brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal some years ago, when Sir Frederick Pollock was Chief Baron. It was the case of a son who was a Churchman, whose mother, being a Dissenter, was buried in a Dissenting burial-ground with, I think, two children and a second wife of the father. On the death of the father the son, as a Churchman, determined to bury him in the churchyard, and not enduring the notion of separating in death his father's and his mother's remains, he gained access to the Nonconformist burial-ground, disturbed the ground and the remains which were buried there, and unlawfully took away, after the lapse of several years, the corpse of the mother,
  502
  in order that it might be placed in the churchyard with that of his father at the time of the father's burial. Although the action was justly condemned by law, and is not likely to find imitators, yet I think it is a good illustration of the strength and depth of those feelings which make us desire to lie in death near to those whom we have loved in life. This is, in fact, one of the reasons why, so far from the notion of separate burial-grounds being likely to settle this question, the attempt to establish them only enlarges the area of the difficulty; and the Government, in endeavouring to deal with the whole question, have been obliged to include within the scope of their proposals consecrated ground in cemeteries as well as churchyards, because they find that, from the changes which occur in families, the consequence of maintaining that separation, even in cemeteries, is to prevent the members of families from being laid together, to outrage natural feeling, and also to violate rights of property which the law has permitted to be acquired in such cemeteries and burial-grounds. The different Burial Acts enable burial boards and cemetery authorities to sell rights of burial and to appropriate them to members of families, so that a particular family is entitled to a particular right for many years, or until it is exhausted. When they go to exercise that right of property, they are placed exactly in the position they would have been in the churchyard; and, in truth, these public burial-grounds and cemeteries, being provided as parochial grounds in lieu of others which have been closed, it naturally follows that you must deal with them on the same principles. Well, my Lords, I should have thought I had said enough on this branch of the case but for a peculiar event in legislation which took place last year. A Bill, which is now known as Mr. Marten's Act, introduced by the then Member for Cambridge, passed through the House of Commons without much, if any, discussion, and, as some persons thought, rather by good management than because the House understood and approved its principle. When it came here, some of us took the liberty to suggest that it was not likely to be successful as an attempt to settle this question. It was put forward as a sanitary measure; but most persons thought that the objects really

  503
  aimed at by its promoters were not chiefly sanitary. The result is, as was anticipated, that it has practically turned out to be a dead letter. Those who look at its provisions are not likely to be surprised at this result. It incorporates other Acts, and when you put them together you find that it cannot be put into operation without a gift of money or ground, or without resources provided out of rates. It is true that the Local Government Board might require it to be put into operation in rural places. But the Local Government Board would be unwilling to make such an order on any locality unless the ratepayers were tolerably unanimous. If any burial-ground is obtained under the Act, it must be fenced round with walls or iron rails eight feet high, and that is a burdensome expense. If any part of it is consecrated there must be a chaplain with a salary, though no provision is made for the salary, and there must also be a chapel. The Local Government Board lost no time in sending out a Circular calling the attention of all parishes in the country to this important Act, and suggesting how advantageous it might be to the public health and otherwise if its provisions were acted upon. It has been in operation nearly a year, and I have a Return showing what its operation has been. I am also indebted to a learned gentleman who lost no time in producing an edition of the Act, with a suitable introduction and notes, for a copy of his work. The author, Mr. Baker, considers, and I believe quite correctly, that it will never be used for the purpose of providing any ground which is meant to be consecrated. Its provisions, as to such ground, are too burdensome; those of the Burial Acts are much better and more convenient. Of the real object of Mr. Marten's Act, or what he supposes to be such, he gives this description—
  "There are many thousand parishes, sparsely populated, for which the machinery of a separate Board, for burial purposes would he at once burdensome and unnecessary. Nevertheless, the parochial churchyard is not in itself sufficient, by reason of a considerable proportion of the inhabitants being Nonconformists, who either object to the Church Burial Service, or over whom the last offices cannot legally or conscientiously be performed by the clergy. It is apprehended that for these sparse populations the Interments Act, 1879, will be found highly useful."
  There is a charming simplicity in that. You would think that all these parishes
  504
  would have come forward, in anxious haste, to avail themselves of this remedy. But the Local Government Board has sanctioned loans for cemeteries in four cases only, and only one of them for a rural district. In six other cases the sanitary authorities propose to provide cemeteries under the Act. In all, then, there are 10 cases of its adoption, or proposed adoption, out of those many thousand parishes, and of these, six are urban and not rural cases. It is really preposterous to suppose that parishes possessing churchyards in which there is still room for the population—and I am told that in Wales that is the rule rather than the exception—will tax themselves and their neighbours, and go to all the other expenses of that Act, for the sake of doing what nobody wishes for, who is at all interested. I may, therefore, lay it aside and say no more on the scheme for separate burial-grounds. I pass now to another suggested remedy; the permission of silent burial in the churchyard, whenever the Service of the Church of England is objected to. This was part of the plan of my noble Friend the late Lord Steward, in 1871; and it was also the plan of the late Government in 1877. It is very odd, my Lords, that a settlement of this grievance—which consists of two parts, the one compelling the use of the Church Service in certain cases, and the other compelling burial without any Christian service in other cases—should have been thought possible, by taking away one part of the grievance, and making the other universal. To those who have learnt, as most Christian bodies in England have learnt, from the example and practice of the Church of England, to regard with repugnance the neglect or omission of religious solemnities in the burial of their dead, there is a want which compulsory silent burial can never satisfy. Are you, in the name of the Church of England, to say that Christians who wish to bury their dead with a religious service shall use no religious form if they will not use yours? It is not only as a citizen, it is much more as a Churchman, that I protest against such a doctrine as that. If you cannot justify the imposition in the one case of the use of the Church Service by compulsion on the people, on what conceivable motion should you refuse to your fellow-Christians the power to use their own service, and deny them

  505
  the liberty of being as religious as they wish to be on these solemn occasions? Some, who feel this, have suggested that you should allow the use of services differing from those of the Church of England; but should prescribe or define by law what services they are to use. This was, in effect, the course taken in Mr. Plunket's and Mr. Monsell's Irish Acts, which said that the priests or ministers of churches or denominations, differing from the Established Church, might use in a churchyard the accustomed funeral services of their own churches or denominations. But a condition of this kind makes the liberty which you grant dependent upon an inquiry into the official character of every Nonconformist priest or minister, and into the customs of each particular Dissenting church or congregation. To any other mode of prescribing particular services there is the insuperable objection, that, instead of removing the grievance, it would only be varying its form, to those who object to having particular religious services imposed upon them by law. One more alternative still remains, which I should not have alluded to if it had not been advocated in 1877 by a right rev. Prelate, an ornament of this House, and one of the most eloquent Members of the Episcopal Bench. He desired to remove the grievance by allowing the parochial clergy, if they pleased, to give permission to Nonconformist ministers or others to use other services than that of the Church. That plan, my Lords, was tried in Ireland and failed; and in England, I cannot help thinking, it would produce greater irritation than anything else; because those clergy who refused permission and those who conceded it would be in the bitterest opposition to each other, while nothing could be more grievous to Nonconformists than that they should be met with concession in one parish and with refusal in the next. I do not think the right rev. Bench would be disposed to accept that alternative. I have now, my Lords, said all that is necessary to show that these alternatives do not hold water; and I would now say a few words as to some of the positive recommendations of the plan which the Government proposes. One of those positive recommendations is this—that while it gives direct relief to Nonconformists, while it consults their
  506
  scruples and gives them a full liberty as to the mode of burial coincident with their civil rights, on the other hand it tends indirectly to relieve the clergy from their present obligations in certain cases in which those obligations might be burdensome. The true ecclesiastical relation of Nonconformists to the Church is one which amply justifies the principle that the Church should bury them, if their friends desire that they should receive ecclesiastical burial. They have been baptized, and as such are recognized as members of the Church of Christ. They have never been excommunicated; for that can only take place by the sentence of a competent Court. And inasmuch as there are very many of them who, in truth, are not altogether alienated from the Church, it is well that the Church should, in death, acknowledge them to be entitled to her ministrations, if their surviving friends are willing that they should be so acknowledged. But there are cases in which the separation from the Church has been more absolute, and founded upon a more settled principle; cases of men who in their lives have assumed a persistent attitude of strong opposition to the Church, and who professed tenets very hostile and repugnant to those of the Church. The very same motive which in such cases would lead Nonconformists to desire not to have the Church Service forced on them, might also render it difficult for a conscientious clergyman to perform that Service. Every clergyman must feel it a profanation when that sacred and solemn Service is forced by law upon unwilling persons; and it is for the good of the Church, as well as the nation, that no such profanation should take place. What is relief, in such a case, to the Nonconformist, is also relief to the clergyman. I cannot help thinking that, but for some objections and fears, to which I will now advert, this would be generally understood by the clergy. One of those objections is associated with the sense of reverence justly and naturally felt by the clergy with respect to consecrated ground, and their fear is lest that ground should be desecrated. Now, there is no mystery in consecration, although the act is solemn and commendable. The ancient Romans thought that ground was consecrated by merely depositing in it the remains of the

  507
  dead. That is an idea with, which I confess I have some sympathy; but a more formal manner of dedication has been for many centuries practised in the Christian Church. In foreign countries there are two modes of consecration. One is to consecrate the ground entire, which is done by the Bishop, and this is the mode adopted in England; and the other is to consecrate each separate grave at each interment, which is done by the officiating minister. Some right rev. Prelates are reported to have lately expressed an opinion that it might be desirable to introduce that mode into England. But I beg your Lordships to remember that the consecration of a churchyard as practised in England is this and only this—the Bishop signs a deed; of which two forms, one used by Archbishop Whitgift, under Queen Elizabeth, and the other by Archbishop Tenison, under Queen Anne, may be found in Bishop Gibson's work. Whitgift's form is this—
  "We decree that all and every the persons who henceforth shall depart this life within the parish of—shall be buried and interred in this place; that it shall be for ever hereafter a cemetery and place of burial for the said parishioners and inhabitants, and shall have all the privileges belonging to a religious place set apart for public and Christian burial; and by these presents we so constitute and ordain."
  Archbishop Tenison's form is in these words—
  "We decree the separation of this place from its former and from all other profane and common uses; and assign, dedicate, and consecrate it as a cemetery or holy place for the burial of the faithful dying within the said parish, and of all others entitled to be there buried; and we openly and publicly pronounce, decree, and declare that it shall for all future time remain so separated, assigned, dedicated, and consecrated."
  To the deed or act of consecration, of which these are two examples, nothing is added, except a short prayer, not prescribed by authority. That which is now generally in use was, I believe, settled by Convocation in 1712; it recites the practice of holy men in all ages "to assign peculiar places, where the bodies of the saints may rest in peace and be preserved from all indignities," and it is a simple prayer to Almighty God to "accept this charitable work of ours in separating this portion of ground for that good purpose." I can understand that such a dedication, and the feelings
  508
  associated with it, constitute good reasons why nothing profane should be suffered in such a place. But in England it has not been deemed a profanation to lay in the churchyard, the consecrated ground, the remains of unbaptized persons, of those who have laid violent hands on themselves, and of strangers and foreigners, as to whom no one can tell whether they be baptized or not. If that involves no profanation, no desecration, how can it be profanation or desecration that any Christian Service used by any body of Christians according to their light should take the place of silent burial when the Church Service cannot be used? No one admires more than I do the Burial Service of the Church of England; no one is more attached than I am to the Church of England; but that any part of the Church Service has such special sanctity that the use of any other words in consecrated burial-grounds, without the ministrations of an ordained clergyman, would be profanation, is an idea of which no trace can be found in any authoritative formulary of the Church, and which I am sure the right rev. Bench will not uphold. With respect to things really inconsistent with the respect due to a place dedicated to a sacred use, sufficient safeguards will, I trust, be found in the Bill which I am about to lay upon your Lordships' Table. I must not pass over without notice two other objections. It is said that because Nonconformists do not contribute to the maintenance of churchyards, you are either to do nothing or make them contribute. To that there appears to me to be an obvious answer. No one is now bound by law to contribute to the maintenance of churchyards. I believe there are many Nonconformists who, if consideration were shown to their feelings, would be very likely to contribute not only to the churchyards, but to some other church objects. But, unless you are going to restore church rates in respect of churchyards, not only as to Nonconformists, but generally, such a condition cannot have place in a measure of this kind. I do not myself think it would be in the interest of the Church to restore church rates in any shape for any purpose whatever. The other objection, which I desire to notice, is that recent donations ought to be excepted from the Bill. I cannot agree with

  509
  that, although a recent donor myself. All donors of property given to be added to churchyards knew quite well that they were devoting that property to that public use; and, as long as the churchyard is used for the burial of the parishioners, under one law equally and indifferently applicable to every part of it, there is no reason whatever why that part should be taken back again, separated from the rest, and put under a different law. If the donors had been so minded, they might have created private trusts; and during the last 20 years, at all events, no one could have been ignorant that there was a great probability of this question being dealt with in the manner which is now proposed. Now, I will shortly state to your Lordships what we propose by the Bill. We propose that notice may be given by the relatives having the charge of any funeral, in the case of churchyards to the incumbent, and in the case of consecrated ground in public cemeteries to the chaplain, if there be one, and to the clerk of the burial board, that it is the desire of those persons that the body shall be buried without the Service of the Church. The minister is then excused from attending. The relatives of paupers who are to be buried by the Guardians may exercise the same right of giving notice. If the time proposed for the burial clashes with any Church Service, the minister is at liberty to alter it within reasonable limits. All existing regulations as to the position and making of the grave are to remain in force. That was one of the points included in Lord Harrowby's Amendment in 1877. All fees payable by law will still be payable by the same persons. The Act is only to apply to churchyards or cemeteries in which the deceased had a right of burial. Registration is provided for. Then there is a clause which says—
  "At any burial under this Act all persons shall have free access to the churchyard or graveyard in which the same shall take place. The burial may take place, at the option of the person having the charge of or being responsible for the same, either without any religious service, or with such Christian and orderly religious service at the grave—[those were the words of Lord Harrowby's Amendment]—as such person shall think fit; and any person or persons who shall be thereunto invited, or be authorized by the person having the charge of or being responsible for such burial, may con-duet such service or take part in any religious act thereat."
  510
  There is a clause against any disorder or indecency in the manner of conducting such burials; also treating as a misdemeanour any wilful obstruction of such burial or permitted service. It says—
  "Every person guilty of riotous, violent, or indecent behaviour at any such burial, or of wilfully obstructing the same, or who shall deliver any address, not being part of or incidental to a religious service permitted by this Act, and not otherwise permitted by any lawful authority, or who shall, under colour of any religious service or otherwise, in any such churchyard or graveyard, wilfully endeavour to bring into contempt or obloquy the Christian religion, or the belief, or worship of any church or denomination of Christians, or the members or any minister of any such church or denomination, or any other person,"
  shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. This, in substance and in form, with no more than a very slight verbal alteration, was agreed to by your Lordships in 1877. I am not one of those who think there is any probability of such disorders. I do not think they occurred under Lord Plunket's Act in Ireland. I have not heard of their occurrence in any of our public cemeteries; nor do I think them likely to occur in churchyards. But I do not, on that account, think that it would be right or prudent to omit to make provision against them; and the substance of the provision which I have read was included in Lord Harrowby's Amendment, and agreed to by your Lordships in 1877. There must, of course, be a possibility that, if no such provision were made, things not otherwise probable might happen, under the influence of those feelings of excitement and irritation which a long-protracted controversy is apt to engender, and which may not at once cease upon its settlement bylaw. I am sorry to say that feelings of that kind are by no means confined to one side in this controversy. I have myself received letters from highly respectable clergymen which might, perhaps, justify some uneasiness on my part, if I were to trust only to every man's good sense and discretion while under the operation of such feelings. The clause which I have read will sufficiently distinguish between what the law does and what it does not authorize, and will take reasonable security against obstruction on the one hand, and against profanation on the other. The Bill also deals with two other matters, which, although they do not affect the

  511
  Nonconformists, have appeared to the Government to be worthy of consideration from a different point of view. We have thought it right to relieve from legal penalties any clergyman officiating in unconsecrated ground with the Service of the Church, when such Service might otherwise be used. I find the present state of the law is that this may, in certain cases, be permitted by warrant from the Secretary of State. The Lord President of the Council has more than once alluded to a particular cemetery at Northampton which from some cause or other has remained unconsecrated, and yet it and other unconsecrated cemeteries are the only burial places for considerable numbers of people. We deem it right that all penalties should be taken away in the case of clergymen officiating in such places. The other point is this—It may be in the recollection of your Lordships that Archbishop Longley, some years ago, stated very strongly his view as to the impossibility in certain cases of the Burial Service of the Church of England being used by a clergyman. Tour Lordships may also remember that Lord Ebury more than once brought the same subject under your Lordships' notice. During the debates in 1877 two Amendments were moved, the one successfully by the most rev. Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, to enable and authorize a different Service from the Burial Service of the Church to be used at the discretion of the clergyman in the case of unbaptized children and others over whom the Church Service cannot be read. The Archbishop of York also moved an Amendment, which would have the effect of excusing the clergy from reading the Burial Service in certain cases of grievous scandal. That Amendment was not adopted by your Lordships; and there can be no doubt that the matter was full of difficulty, on account of the impossibility of defining, or ascertaining by any mode of inquiry, the cases to which such a relaxation of the clergyman's legal obligation could safely be applied without opening a door to greater evils. One reasonable suggestion thrown out in the course of those debates was, that the right rev. Bench should consider whether any modification in the form of the Church Service might be possible, by which the difficulty felt by the clergy in such cases might to some
  512
  extent be met. It so happened that the two Convocations were then, and had been for some years, sitting with Letters of Business from the Crown, and with authority to revise the Rubrics of the Church, and, among others, the Rubrics of the Office for the Burial of the Dead. Both Convocations have since made Reports to the Crown. They have made recommendations upon a variety of subjects, of which I need not now speak; and they have arrived at conclusions as to what it is really practicable and desirable to do on this particular subject. These conclusions, as expressed by the Convocation of Canterbury, will be found in one of the Schedules to the Bill which I now present. They have appeared to Her Majesty's Government to be reasonable and moderate; and I think they will be considered by your Lordships to be wisely conceived, and to avoid the difficulties with which the proposition formerly made was felt to be surrounded. The recommendations, in the material parts of which both Convocations were agreed—omitting some which are merely verbal or formal, when the full Church Service is to be used—are, first, the addition to the Rubric which specifies the cases in which the regular Office of the Church is not to be used, of the category of persons dying in the commission of any grievous crime; and in the express exception from that Rubric of persons dying by their own hands who are found to be of unsound mind, an exception which, I have no doubt, the law would already imply. Another important recommendation is, that the minister, at the request or with the consent of the kindred or friends of any deceased person—not otherwise—maybe at liberty to use an abridgment—that is to say, certain parts, and not the whole, of the ordinary Service. To these recommendations the Convocation of Canterbury alone has added one more, which is also of some importance, and which is substantially the same with the Amendment proposed by the most rev. Primate in 1877, and agreed to by your Lordships. According to that recommendation any clergyman will be at liberty, in cases in which the ordinary Burial Service of the Church cannot by law be used, to say or read over the grave, at the request of the kindred or friends of the deceased, other prayers taken from, the Book of

  513
  Common Prayer, and portions of the Holy Scripture approved by the Ordinary, under certain restrictions. It appeared to the Government that they might properly meet the reasonable wishes of the clergy upon this subject, by enabling them to act according to all or any of those recommendations of the two Convocations, without being subject to any penalties, ecclesiastical or civil; and the Bill contains a clause to that effect. We were anxious, as far as we could, to look at all parts of the question. My Lords, I will only add, in conclusion, that I decline, on this occasion, to go into the question of danger to the Church of England. I know that the Church of England has its dangers, and I believe the continuance of this as an unsettled question to be one of the most serious of them. I feel sure that no new danger will be added by this measure, and I hope and believe that by it a danger will be removed. I commend it to your Lordships as a measure founded, in intention certainly, and as I believe in fact, upon principles of justice and charity, upon a sound view of the true interest of the Church, and containing nothing inconsistent with her real principles. I commend it to your Lordships as a measure calculated, as far as it goes—certainly much more calculated than the present state of things—to promote the object for which we daily pray before commencing our deliberations, when we ask God to unite and knit together the hearts of all Her Majesty's subjects in true Christian love and charity one towards another.
  Bill to amend the Burial Laws—Presented (The Lord Chancellor).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONadmitted the importance of the question. It would be desirable that their Lordships should have as long a period as convenient to study the provisions of the Bill before its second reading. He asked when it would be printed, and when it was proposed to move the second reading?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it would be printed immediately, distributed to-morrow, and the second reading would be moved this day week.
  Bill read 1a; to be printed. (No. 73.)

THE TURKISH PARLIAMENT.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the revival of the Ottoman Assemblies overthrown by the war between Russia and the Porte is a leading object of the special Embassy to Constantinople?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I think I can give an answer which will be satisfactory to the noble Lord, and it is that the arrangements of the Powers with respect to the first steps they are about to take for the fulfilment of the Treaty obligations are nearly concluded, and that I hope in a very short time to be able to lay on the Table Papers which will give noble Lords all the information they require. Until that time arrives, however, I do not think it would be convenient to enter into any explanation with regard to any particular point. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) at the time of the Conference made a severe attack upon the proposal to summon a Parliament in Constantinople, a criticism almost as severe as if it had been a Reform Bill proposed by a Liberal Government. I am afraid I spoke subsequently disrespectfully of it; but I am bound to say that there is now a general consent that while it lasted it did much better than was expected, and that, properly constituted, it contains valuable elements for the better government of the Ottoman Empire.
  THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: Speaking from memory, I think that the objections I took to that Constitution were as to the very imperfect and fragmentary character of its provisions, which left some of the most important securities unascertained; and I noticed the fact that so long as the Sultan retained the power of exiling at his will the principal Members of the Opposition, there was not likely to be any effective security for good government, [laughter.] I suppose if the Government of any country possessed that power there would not be much chance for the Opposition. And Turkey is, perhaps, no exception to the rule. But I think the amount of my condemnation of that Constitution was simply to say that it was not, in my judgment, likely to be held by the Representatives of the Powers

  515
  then discussing the question as an adequate substitute for the recommendations they made.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the word revival used by the noble Lord who had put the Question was the correct one, since, in case of emergency, the Ottoman Parliament might be summoned without any other elections than those for deceased Members. Last autumn, when in Turkey, he had seen some Members of the Turkish Parliament; they were very fit persons for Members of Parliament, and they felt much indignation at the indifference to their Parliament shown in England. It was inconceivable that a Liberal Government should not support the Turkish Parliament, unless there was insincerity in their desire for reforms in Turkey, or else undue subservience to Russia.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.