Sitting of 28 May 1880

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Right hon. Hugh Law, for Londonderry County.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Parliamentary Oath (Mr. Bradlaugh), nominated; Commons, appointed and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class II., SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS, Votes 17 to 32; Committee R.P. Resolutions [May 27] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Partnerships (No. 2)*[195].
Ordered—First Reading—Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment [196]; Industrial Schools (Ireland)*[197].
Second Reading—Merchant Seamen (Payment of Wages, &c.) [119], debate adjourned; Leases, [177], debate adjourned.
Third Reading—Public Works Loans [171], and passed.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
Ordered, That all Bills for confirming Provisional Orders or Certificates shall he set down for consideration, each day, in a separate List, after the Private Business, and arranged in the same order as that prescribed by the Standing-Orders for Private Bills; and every such Bill, when or so far as it is unopposed, shall after the Second Reading stand referred to the Committee constituted by Standing Order for unopposed Private Bills, and shall be subject to the same Rules and Orders of the House, so far as they are applicable.
Ordered, That the said Order be a Standing Order of this House.—(The Chairman of Wags and Means.)

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That, in the case of Unopposed Private Bills, suspended in the last Session of Parliament, of which Members had charge who are not Members of the present Parliament, the Committee of Selection have power to refer them to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and one Member connected with the town or district to which the Bill refers, and one other Member not locally interested therein, or a Referee.
Ordered, That, in the case of Bills to confirm any Provisional Order or Certificate suspended in the last Session of Parliament which are unopposed, the Committee of Selection have power to refer them to the Chairman of Ways and Means, and one Member representing the Department by whom the Bill was introduced, and one other Member not locally interested therein, or a Referee.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

QUESTIONS.

  INHABITED HOUSE DUTY—MECHANICS' INSTITUTES.
  MR. S. LEIGHTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will take into his consideration the propriety of extending to Mechanics' Institutes the exemption from Inhabited House Duty now allowed to merchants in respect of their business premises, and to barristers in respect to their chambers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am afraid that it is not in my power to hold out to the hon. Member any engagement on this subject. It is not possible with regard to exemptions to adopt any lines that shall be absolutely satisfactory upon broad and clear principles, nor do I believe it possible to adopt any line that would be absolutely satisfactory or more acceptable than the present one. As to the chambers of barristers and merchants' offices, they were considered to be in law exactly on the same footing; and I apprehend that all other buildings would be exempted provided they were only used as offices, and not for profit.

  SECRET TREATIES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any Treaty, Convention, Secret Article of a Treaty or of a Convention, Agreement, or Diplomatic Correspondence in the nature of an Agreement, that has been negotiated within the last five years, between this Country and any Foreign Power, which is not known to the House; whether, if so, he will lay the same upon the Table of the House; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Agreement between this Country and Russia signed by the Marquis of Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff prior to the Berlin Conference?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, with regard to the first part of the Question, I have to state that, for reasons which the House will readily understand, it is obviously impossible for Her Majesty's Government to give an answer which would completely satisfy the curiosity of the hon. Member. Secret Agreements may at times be necessary in order to meet the convenience of foreign Powers

  635
  with whom we are in negotiation; but Her Majesty's Government think that, as a rule, any engagements of this nature which throw obligations on this country are to deprecated. It may, however, be satisfactory to the House to know that Her Majesty's Government are able to repeat and confirm the assurance given by Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords on the 26th of July 1878, that—
  "This country is under no engagements for the future except those on the Table of the House."—[3 Hansard, ccxlii. 354.]
  With regard to the specific document referred to in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, I have reason to believe that its publication was objected to by the late Government owing to the refusal of a foreign Power to consent to the production of other confidential documents which were thought necessary to elucidate it. Her Majesty's Government do not think that in these circumstances any useful purpose would be served by pressing the matter further, the more so as the negotiations of which the document in question formed a part are now closed; and it has, therefore, ceased to have any practical importance.

  CATTLE—TRANSPORT OF FOREIGN CATTLE.
  MR. THOMPSONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the great loss of life among cattle during their passage to British ports, stated in the Veterinary Report of 1879; and, whether in the vessels in which cattle are imported proper space is provided for them to lie down, and whether sufficient ventilation is secured?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the very serious loss of animal life referred to is mainly attributable to the violent storms which prevailed in the Atlantic last year. The fittings and ventilation of the vessels trading with America are regulated by the terms of the Order in Council, which were framed on the Report of a Committee which inquired into the whole subject in 1870. The pens in these vessels are generally arranged to hold two animals each, with sufficient space for one to lie down at a time. In some cases each animal has a separate pen. The Privy Council Inspectors are instructed to report any neglect of the Order with regard to fittings or ventila-
  636
  tion. It is impossible, however, that proper ventilation should be insured "in all states of the weather," as required by the Order, because it frequently happens in the Atlantic that all fittings are carried away, and all openings have to be closed to keep out the seas'. The Lords of the Council have been in communication with the Board of Trade on this subject, and it has been agreed that it would be desirable that the powers of the Board of Trade to hold inquiries under the Merchant Shipping Acts in cases of wrecks and casualties should be extended to exceptional losses of animal life. I am afraid, in spite of all our precautions, there is a great deal of animal suffering which is preventible; and we are taking steps, in conjunction with the Board of Trade, to reduce that suffering to a minimum.

  LAW OF NEWSPAPER LIBEL.
  MR. HUTCHINSONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose the appointment of a Select Committee on the Law of Newspaper Libel, in continuation of the Committee which sat last year?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, in the Session of 1879 a Committee was appointed to inquire into the law of newspaper libel, and it sat and took a great mass of evidence, but did not make a Report. He understood that many Members wished that the Committee should be re-appointed, and the Government were willing to re-appoint it. He would ask the hon. Member to confer with the Government as to the time when the Committee would sit; and he wished it to be understood that the Government, in consenting to the Committee, did not pledge itself to take any action to give effect to the Report of the Committee in the shape of legislation.

  ARMY—GENERAL OFFICERS—ROYAL WARRANT OF 1877.
  MR. TREVELYANasked the Secretary of State for War, What progress has been made towards reducing the number of Effective General Officers for the Guards and Line and the Indian Staff Corps to the number of 270, as contemplated in the Royal Warrant of 1877; and, what is the approximate

  637
  date at which the separation between the two lists, detailed in paragraph 28 of the Warrant, is likely to occur?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that, according to the last Army List, there were 302 general officers of Guards and Line, and 70 of the Indian Staff Corps. The latter were at their established number; the former in process of reduction from about 328, which they had reached in 1877, to 200, by the absorption of one vacancy in three. The Lists, though printed together, were, on the 1st of October, 1877, separated for promotional purposes.

  METROPOLIS—ADMISSION TO THE TOWER.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government have in view any plan by which the arrangements for the admission of visitors to the Tower of London can be improved; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of such plan?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that the present arrangements for the admission of, visitors to the Tower appear to me capable of great improvement; and I have set on foot proposals which will, I hope, lead to a more reasonable system. But the number of officers and Departments concerned, and who have to be consulted on the subject, is so great that I do not expect to be able to submit a final plan for Her Majesty's approval for some little time to come; but, when settled, it shall be communicated to the House.

  INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)—SHANNON IMPROVEMENTS.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Commissioners of Public Works to proceed at once to insert the flood sluices in the Jamestown weir, which form a portion of the works authorised to be done in connection with the Shannon improvements, in order to prevent the losses caused by the annually recurring inundations of the river; and, whether, in the event of its being found impossible to proceed with the permanent works on this weir this season, they will make any arrangement by which the level of the river above may be tempo-
  638
  rarily lowered pending the execution of the works?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, the plans for the insertion of flood sluices in all the weirs on the Shannon have been completed, and tenders are now about to be invited for the execution of the works; but it is necessary that the operations should be carried out consecutively, commencing with the lower levels, and, therefore, the insertion of sluices in Jamestown Weir, which is the highest on the river, cannot be at once undertaken. With regard to a temporary lowering of the waters pending the execution of the works, there are no arrangements which can legally be made which would effect that object.

  THE FISHERIES (IRELAND)—LOANS.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government will consider the possibility of further extending the system of loans to fishermen which, carried out in a limited manner under the provisions of the Reproductive Loan Fund Act, has already produced such good effects?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, this is one of the Questions which ought to be addressed to the Treasury and not to me, as the system of loans can only be extended by the Treasury ordering an annual grant in addition to the present amount granted from the Reproductive Loan Fund. I may add that the management of that Fund, which was formed in 1822, and raised by private subscriptions to deal with the distress in Ireland in that year, has a balance which is in the hands of the Commissioners of Public Works, and therefore, as my hon. Friend is aware, is under the management of the Treasury under the Public Works Act.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  MR. WHITWORTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, considering that a request has been made by large and influential bodies of employers that the Prime Minister will receive a deputation upon the subject of the Employers' Liability Bill (which Bill was only delivered on Monday last), he will postpone the Second Reading of that Bill until an opportunity has been given to that de-

  639
  putation to express their views upon this important subject?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, the Prime Minister had agreed to receive a deputation, and the second reading of the Bill would be postponed until Thursday, when it would be taken as the first Order of the Day.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following statement, made by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, locum tenens, as chairman of a meeting of the Dublin Mansion House Relief Fund Committee, held on Tuesday last, the 25th inst., and reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 26th, from which it appears that—
  "The Committee had distributed on an average £7,000 a week, and it would be necessary to keep up the relief in order to preserve the people from famine and death for at least twelve weeks longer, that is, up to the 15th of August, if not still longer, in many parts of Ireland. It would require £84,000 to give during that time the same proportion of relief they had been giving hitherto, and out of that they had scarcely £21,000 left to-day, so that they would require assistance to the amount of £63,000 more to enable them to keep up the relief until the harvest;"
  and, whether, in view of the imminent national peril thus disclosed, the Government will now proceed to institute such measures as may effectually provide against a recurrence of famine in Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Mr. Speaker, I read yesterday in The Freeman's Journal the statement to which the hon. Member refers, and I have given that close attention to it which it requires. I can only repeat, what I have said before here and elsewhere, that the officers of the Local Government Board in Ireland are carefully watching the condition of the distressed Unions in which it is expected that the charitable relief which has hitherto been so generally given must come to an end. There will be, and there is, a considerable increase of employment, owing to the works for which loans have been advanced to landlords and public bodies, and the Local Government Board Inspectors have orders to secure that out-door relief be given when necessary. With regard to the second part of the Question of the hon. Gentleman—whether the Government
  640
  will now proceed to institute such measures as may effectually provide against a recurrence of famine in Ireland—I cannot admit that there has been this year a famine, though there has been in some districts great distress, and in some cases there would have been some famine unless public and private assistance had been given. I hardly need repeat that the Government think it their duty to consider what the law can rightly do to prevent the recurrence of such distress; but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that no law or no Government is all-powerful in these matters.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS IN KERRY.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether a considerable force of constabulary were present at certain evictions which have recently taken place at Ahabeg, in the county Kerry; and, if so, what part they took in the proceedings?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, there was eviction on the 10th instant of one family (nine persons) at Ahabeg, in the county of Kerry, for rent. There were seven police present at the eviction, which was under a writ from the Superior Courts, and the part they took in the proceedings was to protect the sub-sheriff and the bailiffs in carrying out the orders of the Court. Nevertheless, I am sorry to say, two of the bailiffs were badly beaten with sticks and stones, and that but for the presence of the police, the bailiffs, who had run here and there from their assailants, would have been seriously injured. One of the stones thrown struck the sub-sheriff.

  THE ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Sir, the Question of which I gave Notice is somewhat different from that which appears on the Paper; but I now beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is correctly reported to have stated in Midlothian that the Anglo-Turkish Convention was an insane Convention; and, if so, whether he still adheres to that statement?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am doubtful whether I am correctly reported to have used that epithet in Mid Lothian, according to the terms of this Question; but

  641
  there is no question at all about my having used the word at some period shortly after the conclusion of the Convention, and I believe in this House, with other epithets to which I need not particularly refer. I need not say that these epithets are perhaps more proper subjects of discussion, if the hon. Member sees cause for it, than for inquiry, which after all comes to be an inquiry, not as to a matter of fact, but as to a matter of opinion. Now, Sir, with regard to those epithets, I am not able to retract anything I have said. On the other hand, I do not wish particularly to refer to them, or to repeat them, because, were I to repeat them, it would only have the unnecessary effect of disparaging an instrument with respect to which, whatever I may think of the policy which led to its conclusion, or of its character in other respects, I cannot possibly deny that we are not free to withdraw ourselves from.

  THE ROYAL MARINES—THE COMMITTEE.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Committee appointed in December last on the constitution of the corps of Royal Marines has reported; and, if so, whether he will lay the Report upon the Table of the House?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, that the information was at present of a confidential character; and he could not say whether it could be published until the Admiralty had decided what action to take upon it.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—BOMBARDMENT OF BATAUGN.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to a statement which appeared in the "Daily News" of May 10, to the effect that, in consequence of the alleged capture and maltreatment of a British trader by the inhabitants of Bataugn, a town about south of the Cameroons, Commodore Richards, acting under the instructions of Acting Consul Captain Easton, opened fire upon the town, and bombarded it for five hours, after which a party of Marines and blue jackets landed and burnt the town; if he can inform the House whether that statement is correct;
  642
  and, further, if he can inform the House whether, among instructions given to British Consuls, they are intrusted with the authority, at their own discretion, to make war upon native tribes, and to bombard and burn down their towns and villages?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I am sorry to say that the account given of this bombardment is substantially correct. It appears that in May, 1879, the natives of Bataugn forcibly boarded the British schooner Cyprus and took away the mate (Mr. Govier), whom they refused to give up until the captain should establish a factory there. The Governor of Fernando Po, there being no British ship of war within reach, at the late Consul Hopkin's request, sent a gunboat to endeavour to procure his release. The King met the demand by a threat to cut off Mr. Govier's head. After being detained six weeks Mr. Govier made his escape. Mr. Acting Consul Easton proceeded to Bataugn in Her Majesty's ship Firebrand, and addressed a note to the King calling upon him to meet him and explain the outrage. To this only a verbal message was returned, that he would not come and was prepared to resist the entry of any White men into his town. On the arrival of Commodore Richards, Mr. Easton put the matter into his hands, and the Commodore wrote to the King, urging him to come to a "palaver." The King only replied by a message that he would not come. Commodore Richards then sent him another note, to which he received no reply. On the 21st of March he gave notice to the King to remove all women and children out of reach of fire, and the town was shelled and burnt on the 22nd. Commodore Richards was himself wounded in the engagement, and one seaman and one marine killed. The Admiralty have no information as to any loss in killed and wounded which may have been suffered by the Natives. There are no general instructions to Her Majesty's Consuls authorizing them to bombard and burn down Native towns and villages at their discretion; but, as it is only possible by inquiry on the spot to form a judgment as to the nature of outrages committed on British subjects, and the steps necessary to punish them and protect British life and property, a certain amount of discretion is unavoid-

  643
  ably allowed to Her Majesty's Consular and Naval officers in the matter. In this case it was considered that the nature of the outrage and the defiant attitude of the King left no alternative but to inflict punishment. In his Report to the Admiralty, Commodore Richards says—
  "I regret very much the necessity of undertaking expeditions such as this. It is an ignoble species of warfare…It is a matter of great difficulty to arrive at the truth…but I am satisfied that in this case the punishment has been well-merited. The traders having elected to remain by their factories, I have distinctly warned them that they must protect themselves in future."
  After the action the traders asked for further protection. This Commodore Richards refused, giving them the option of embarking their goods and leaving.
  MR. RICHARDgave Notice that he should move a Resolution that the powers claimed and exercised by Representatives of this country in various parts of the world to engage in wars on their own authority were full of danger and contrary to the interests of the country.

  BULGARIA—ALEKO PASHA'S COMMISSION.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government is in possession of the Report made by the Commission appointed by Aleko Pasha to investigate the disturbances which recently occurred at Kirdjali in Bulgaria; and, if so, whether he will lay the same before Parliament?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Report of the Commission has not, as far as we know, been sent in. I presume there will be no objection to lay it before Parliament whenever it is received.

  MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE DERRY TOWN COUNCIL.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, in the city of Derry, the Catholics number nearly two-thirds of the population, and yet, owing to the condition of the Municipal Franchise, are represented by only two Catholic town councillors in the Corporation,
  644
  while all the officers of the Corporation, from the highest to the lowest, are Protestant?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I find, from the Census of 1871, that the Catholic population of Derry was 55 per cent of the population. As regards the religious belief of the town councillors or the officers of the Corporation, I have no official information. I dare say my hon. Friend is right in his statement; and I shall not be surprised to know that it arises from the condition of the municipal franchise. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this is not a matter in which I would be justified in making any official inquiry.

  BOROUGH FRANCHISE (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Second Reading of the Borough Franchise (Ireland) Bill will be taken?
  MR.W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, it would be put nominally on the Paper for Monday; but in case it could not be taken on that day, he would take care the House would be informed some days beforehand of the date on which it would be taken.

  THE BRITISH MUSEUM—NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM.
  MR. STORY-MASKELYNEasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, When the new Natural History Museum will be transferred to the Trustees of the British Museum; and, whether it is the intention of the Government that residences shall be provided for any of the officers of the Museum?
  MR. ADAM: Sir, the Trustees of the British Museum have been informed that they may now proceed to remove their collections to the new Natural History Museum. The question of providing residences for the officers of the Museum was considered by the late Government, who did not see their way to comply with the request. At present, therefore, it is not contemplated that any such residences should be erected.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BASUTOLAND.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been directed

  645
  to a telegram in that morning's "Times" from South Africa, to the effect that the Basuto disarmament has been postponed until the 21st June, owing to the critical state of affairs between the Basutos and the Colonial Government; and, whether he is able to confirm the statement?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I am happy to say that no bad news has reached us from Basutoland. On observing the paragraph to which my hon. Friend has called attention, my noble Friend the Secretary of State telegraphed to ask what was the position of affairs in Basutoland, and desired the Governor to urge his Ministers to proceed with caution and consideration for the Basutos, adding that it would be disastrous to cause disaffection by harsh or precipitate measures. Already more than a fortnight ago my noble Friend had sent a despatch, which has been laid on the Table, and is in the printer's hands, from which I may read an extract—
  "While the Peace Preservation Act confers useful powers upon your Government, its enforcement obviously requires great caution in each particular case, and it would be much to be lamented if the Basutos, who, with the exception of Moirosi and his followers, have been distinguished for their loyalty, were treated with any want of consideration. Your Ministers have, however, necessarily a more intimate knowledge of the circumstances than can be possessed by Her Majesty's Government at home, and I am glad to learn from your despatch of the 15th of March that they fully appreciate their position, and that it is not proposed at present to institute any search for arms in Basutoland by domiciliary visitation, nor to do more than prevent arms from being habitually carried in public. With a view to show to the Basutos that the measure does not proceed from distrust of their loyalty, and that the defence of their country will be adequately provided for, it would be very desirable to carry into effect as soon as possible the scheme for raising and embodying a Native Militia in Basutoland."
  I may, perhaps, be allowed to remind my hon. Friend and the House that the Cape Colony is under responsible government, and that the power of the Secretary of State is strictly limited to giving advice through the Governor.
  MR. RYLANDSasked, Whether the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had any information which would lead him to believe that the part of the telegram stating that a troop of rifles had already been moved into Basutoland was correct?
  MR. GRANT DUFF,in reply, said, the Government had no power to prevent the sending of troops into Basutoland; but no information that a troop of rifles had already moved there had reached the Government.
  MR. COURTNEYinquired, whether special inquiries had been addressed to Sir Bartle Frere with regard to this particular point?
  MR. GRANT DUFF,in reply, said, he did not believe that any inquiry had been addressed with regard to that special point. Inquiry had been made with respect to the whole subject.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. GLADSTONE,in rising to move the following Resolution, which stood upon the Paper:—
    "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members—Mr. Whitbread, Sir John Holker, Mr. John Bright, Lord Henry Lennox, Mr. Massey, Mr. Staveley Hill, Sir Henry Jackson, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Sir Gabriel Goldney, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Watkin Williams, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Beresford Hope, Major Nolan, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Serjeant Simon, Mr. Childers, Mr. Trevelyan, Sir Richard Cross, and Mr. Gibson:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum,"
    said: Sir, we have consented to propose an addition to the former Committee on finding that that was more agreeable to the views of many Gentlemen in this House, and from our desire to meet those views, and to obtain, if possible, a unanimous assent. There is one other observation I ought to make with respect to this Committee. As regards the apportionment of the number of Members connected with the different Parties or sections of this House, the Committee has been framed on the same basis as has been usual in the last two Parliaments. That was done partly because, when the first Committee was chosen, the Government was not fully constituted, and it was not desirable to introduce the consideration of any new question; and in the same way now we are very desirous to avoid mixing with the steps in this rather peculiar case any

    647
    other question on which there could be a difference of opinion. I only say that because I consider it would be our duty in future to propose a somewhat different arrangement in order better to adapt the composition of Committees in general to the exact state of opinion and representation in this House; but for the present I propose the Committee as it now stands.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I only rise for the purpose of entering a caveat against the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman as to the future constitution of Select Committees. I wish it to be understood that I am no party to its acceptance; but I offer no objection to the proposed Committee.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked, whether the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) would have the right to appear himself or by counsel, as had been suggested by the right hon. the senior Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope)?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I understood the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge to be that Mr. Bradlaugh should be permitted to appear by counsel. That certainly would be conformable to various precedents, and I feel that the Committee would be well advised if they would apply to the House for the purpose of allowing such an arrangement. With regard to the question of Mr. Bradlaugh appearing personally, I am not so well able to give an answer, because I do not know what the precedents are; but that would be a matter for the consideration of the Committee, who would approach it in a proper spirit. With reference to what I said as to the composition of Committees, it had reference to important changes; but I said it merely to save myself from misapprehension on future occasions, and by no means to commit others to the views I am disposed to take.
    MR. NEWDEGATEinquired if the Committee were to have power to call for evidence?
    MR. GLADSTONE: That, Sir, I apprehend, would require a vote of the
    648
    House, and I am not aware that such a Motion has been made.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, there were one or two features in the composition of the Committee that struck him as curious. In the first place, it contained no fewer than 13 Members of the Legal Profession. That, he thought, was rather an undue preponderance of the legal element. The view on the Opposition side of the House was not that this question was a purely legal question. There were, no doubt, legal questions, and the advice of men of legal experience would be of great benefit to the Committee. But the view on his side of the House was that it was a great Constitutional question. Why did the Government think it necessary to place both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General on the Committee? He believed, further, that there were only two Nonconformists—the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), who was a member of the Society of Friends, and the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). This was a question which had caused the greatest excitement among the Nonconformist Body, of whom there were about 100 Members in the House; and the Presbyterians, the Wesleyans, and the Baptists were all left to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport to represent them. Then there was only one Roman Catholic Member of the Committee, and, from his own knowledge, the Roman Catholic population and clergy of Ireland had the strongest possible feeling on this question. Strangely enough, they were represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) merely, who had not found it in his power to attend the meeting of the former Committee. There was another curious point which he would notice—namely, that there was no one on the Committee to represent Scotch opinions upon the matter in hand, for the hon. Gentleman who represented the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) could not be said to do so. It would be much more satisfactory to hon. Members on his side of the House if there had been on the Committee such a Member as the senior Member for the City of Bristol (Mr. S. Morley), whose opinion on this subject would have carried very great weight. He should have

    649
    also liked to see the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Shaw). He did not think the Committee, as at present composed, would command the confidence of the House; and he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would undertake that full Notice should be given to the House before any discussion was taken on the Report?
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, he was not going to follow the noble Lord who had just sat down in his remarks with reference to the constitution of the Committee. He wished merely to say that if the House would consent to hand over the constitution of these Committees to the noble Lord much trouble might be spared to others, as he had no doubt the noble Lord would be able to apportion them amongst the different Parties, professions, and religions in the House in a manner which would give satisfaction to everybody. Possibly he might change his mind from year to year, as he rather thought the noble Lord, did on the question of the Irish franchise, and some little trouble might thereby be occasioned to the proceedings. His principal object in rising was to make an explanation which he thought was duo to the House in reference to his absence from the former Committee. The fact was that this Committee was struck upon a Tuesday evening when he was in the County Galway, and he started off on the following morning with a view to be present at its Sittings. When he arrived in Dublin on Wednesday night he telegraphed that he would be in London on Thursday; but it subsequently transpired that the Committee had decided the question. Having regard to the very rapid rate at which the Committee prosecuted its labours, he did not think he could be held responsible for his absence. With respect to the remarks of the Prime Minister, he wished to say that, as a rule, the Irish Party would be entitled to have two Members on a Committee of this kind.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, the noble Lord opposite had assumed that he was a Nonconformist; and although he did not fool in the least hurt at the imputation, he could not allow the argument of the noble Lord to be enforced by leaving the House under what would be an erroneous impression. He might add that
    650
    he thought it would be a very unpleasant heritage to anyone who had to sit upon this Committee, and he should be glad if the House would accept somebody in lieu of him; still, his services were quite at the disposal of the House.
    MR. CHAPLINthought the observations made by his noble Friend below him were entitled to some reply from the Treasury Bench. So far as the Committee was concerned, he should not object if it were the wish of the House to servo on it; but he must protest against the fact of his doing so being taken as an admission that he approved the constitution of the Committee. The question, he might add, was one which, in his opinion, the House ought to decide for itself.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, that, although his name was on the list of the Committee, it would not, he hoped, be out of place that he should say a few words on this subject. He desired to observe that if the House entered on an analysis of the various names proposed it would be embarking on a sea of almost endless trouble. He would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite who had taken part in this debate whether, as those who usually managed such matters for the Party to which they belonged had, so far as the representation of their side was concerned, selected Gentlemen whose names were approved, it would not be well to allow any objections which might be raised as to other names to proceed from other sections of the House who might consider that their views were not fairly represented? For his part, he was of opinion that it would be scarcely possible to appoint a fairer Committee. There were upon it two Irish Members, a Scotch Member, a Roman Catholic, one, if not two, Nonconformists, as well as a Gentleman belonging to the Hebrew persuasion; and its Members had been selected, as far as possible, in equal proportions from the two sides of the House.
    SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAYsaid, he did not rise to utter a word against the constitution of the Committee, but to protest against the startling doctrine just laid down that its appointment ought to be regarded as a matter which had been arranged out-of-doors. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, however, that the institution of a Committee of the

    651
    kind was the act of the House itself, and that no arrangement made out-of-doors could be looked upon as debarring any hon. Member from making such criticisms as he might deem fit with respect to the Members whom it was proposed should serve upon it. In the name, then, of the independent Members of the House, he protested against the doctrine which had been enunciated from the Treasury Bench.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he had merely wished to point out that the arrangement made was one which, so far as the representation of their own Party was concerned, was satisfactory to the other side. Let their side complain if they were unfairly represented.
    MR. SHAWsaid, he was somewhat disappointed that the question at issue should be raised at that moment, instead of at the close of the Sitting. The question, he might add, was one in which the Irish people felt a great interest; and there ought, he thought, to be another Irish Member on the Committee. He himself would have been much happier off the Committee than on it; but he objected that on a matter of this kind a Committee should be overborne by lawyers. A lawyer would argue merely as a lawyer, whereas the Committee should look at it from a Constitutional and common-sense point of view. The services of one of the Law Officers might, he could not help thinking, be very well dispensed with.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFthought the feeling of the House was that the composition of the Committee had been left too much in the hands of the "Whips," against whose dictation he, for one, was inclined to protest. He contended that the Committee should be constituted on a more extended basis. He objected to the number of lawyers—who voted strictly on Party principles—which it was proposed to put upon it. In the case of the last Committee he found that, with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), the Liberal lawyers voted one way and the Conservatives another. If, he might add, there were two Law Officers on the Committee, he did not see why there should not be a pendant on the other side; but the name of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had been omitted from the list. Believing
    652
    that it was desirable, in the interest of the great Constitutional question involved, that more time should be given for the consideration of the constitution of this Committee, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not able to agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. I think it is anything but courteous to speak of the labours of the "Whips" in these matters in the language adopted by the hon. Member. These Gentlemen, we all know, undertake on our behalf very difficult and invidious duties; and I do not believe it would be practicable to get through matters of this kind in a way compatible with the general convenience of the House without their assistance. This Committee has not been, in any degree, the exclusive product of their labours, and great pains have been taken to make a fair and effective representation. What are the pleas set up against it? The plea of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) appears to be this—that the main things we have to look to in choosing a Committee of this kind are the religious professions of the men who are to be placed upon it, and the parts of the country which they represent. It appears to me that, whilst I do not say that either of these topics is a matter to be entirely set aside, they are very secondary matters, and that the great objects to be kept in view are—first, that the personal qualifications of the Members of the Committee shall be held in the very first rank of consideration; and, secondly, that the distribution of general opinions shall be fair as regards the various sections of the House. But how does this list stand in these respects? The minority of the House, from which almost entirely these objections have proceeded, is represented in this list in a proportion greatly exceeding the proportion which it bears to the rest of the House. Yet the complaint we hear does not proceed from the majority, who are under-represented, but from the minority, whom we have consented to be responsible to

    653
    represent in a proportion very considerably beyond that to which the considerations of mere number would entitle them. Then, when we come to the personal qualifications of Members, I think no one who goes over this list, and observes the very considerable number of men of great experience and ability who appear upon it, will make any objection upon that ground. It is complained that the Government have two Law Officers on the list. So have the Opposition, and it was not our fault that they had not three. The hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was withdrawn from the list, not by any proposal of ours, but entirely in conformity with the views of his own political friends. Then the next objection taken is the objection to the number of lawyers on this list. I myself am sometimes a little jealous when I see the Legal Profession on certain classes of questions assuming a formidable position in this House; but I must say that we feel under a very great debt to the Legal Profession for having so greatly assisted and guided us on this particular subject. The noble Lord thinks the lawyers are less likely to go right on this question than other men. [Lord RANDOLPH CHUECHILL: I did not say that.] Well, that is the construction I put on the speech of the noble Lord. What I wish to point out is that, whereas it is thought that a certain amount of Party feeling was to be distinguished in the proceeding of the Committee on the former occasion, one man, whose proceedings went effectually to relieve the Committee from any imputation of that kind, was a lawyer who, although a strong Liberal in politics, yet, as he was bound to do, gave effect to his conscientious opinions by voting with those from whom he differed in point of politics. My opinion is that the question of the composition of this Committee is one which depends in the main on the temper in which hon. Gentlemen are inclined to view it. If you wish to have an impartial Committee, I think we who are in the Government have done all we could to assure ourselves that the wishes of our friends have been properly consulted in the composition of the Committee, in the same way that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have consulted the wishes of their friends. We have taken every
    654
    pains in our power for the purpose of having this matter amicably arranged upon a footing generally agreeable to the House. If there be a name on this list that is an objectionable name, no doubt objection will be taken to it; but I cannot agree with the general tone of the criticisms upon this list. I do not believe that you could produce a better list, although I believe you could produce as good a one. Considering the nature of the subject, there ought to be no undue haste, neither undue delay; but the House is perfectly in a position to proceed to a decision on the matter before it, and I hope it will refuse to adopt the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: In discussing the appointment of this Committee we on this side approach the question from a somewhat different point of view from that by which it is approached from the other side of the House, because we have been of opinion that the question was one which would have been more properly decided by the House itself than by a Committee. That being so, we have naturally looked to the composition of the Committee to be a fair representation, as far as possible, not of one class only, but of all the different sections of the House; and I think there is great force in the remarks of my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) with regard to the various classes of opinions which it would have been desirable to place on the Committee. This Committee has boon nominated under circumstances that are peculiar. In the first instance, before the House had begun to attend to business, and when the Leaders of the House who now sit on the opposite Bench were not Members of the House, a question arose with regard to the hon. Member for Northampton presenting himself and claiming to make an Affirmation. That question the Speaker referred to the House in its then condition. Upon that the Representative of the Government moved that the House should refer the question to a Select Committee, and I seconded the Motion, which appeared to mo a proper proposal. The question before us was a very narrow one; and it was, of course, right that a large proportion of legal Members should serve upon that Committee, though I confess I was surprised that the Committee was.

    655
    struck as it was done. It certainly was unfortunate that it should have gone to work with such rapidity that a Member placed upon it actually could not reach this Committee in time to take part in its deliberations. However, the Committee did its work, and we have every reason to say it did that work in a manner which entitles it to the gratitude of the House, and the House did right in accepting its decision. Then we had a discussion as to another question which seems to have let in much larger issues than the mere narrow technical ones which the first Committee was appointed to try. The question discussed was whether this further point should be referred to a Committee or be decided by the House itself. The House decided by a majority that the matter should go to a Committee; and when that decision was come to I thought we should have had a consultation, and some understanding, before the composition of the Committee was settled. But, instead of beginning de novo to consider what sort of Committee should be appointed, the Prime Minister put down on the Paper the reappointment of the former Committee. I immediately took exception to that course, and I intimated privately to the Government that I thought it would be an unsatisfactory proceeding. As the names were on the Paper, I did not like to be so invidious as to propose the withdrawal of some of them and the substitution of others; but I did express a wish that some other names should be added, and especially of Representatives of this part of the House. I named three whom I was anxious to see placed on the Committee—namely, my right hon. Friend (Sir Richard Cross), the Member for South-West Lancashire, as Representative of the late Cabinet; also my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson), the Member for the University of Dublin; and the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard). Two of those names were added; but the third was not. It was not at all the wish of myself or my Colleagues that the name of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hardinge Giffard) should be loft out. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] I am speaking only what I know. No later than last night I spoke again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), and I impressed upon him that an en-
    656
    deavour should be made to come to an arrangement by which those three names might be added, including that of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hardinge Giffard). I do not think any real object would be gained by adjourning this debate; but the composition of the Committee leaves something to be desired. If we are to proceed by a Committee in this matter, the fairest and the best way would be to increase the number of its Members, after agreeing to those whose names are already placed on the list, the object of such addition being to introduce those elements which had been pointed out by my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock.
    MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he had understood the Prime Minister to say that his view was that Members of the Committee should be chosen for their personal qualifications. Although the right hon. Gentleman might be perfectly right in the main on that point, he (Mr. Mark Stewart) considered that Members to serve on such a Committee as this ought to be chosen from the respective nationalities serving in that House. When he found only one Scotch Member on the Committee, and when that Scotch Member was one who, after speaking on the subject the other night, stated, in the most apologetic manner, that his opinion could hardly be considered that of the Scotch constituencies, he could not help thinking that Scotland was entitled to have another Member on the Committee. There was one of the Scotch Members whose opinion he did not know. All he knew was that he did not vote on the last occasion; and if the Prime Minister would appoint the hon. Member in question—namely, the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), and if, to satisfy the Irish Party, he would also appoint the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), two quarters of the House, at least, would, be satisfied.
    MR. TREVELYANbegged indignantly to repudiate the insinuation of the hon. Member that he was not a Representative of Scotland. At the last Election he gained by open vote a larger proportionate majority than had ever been gained in ancient or modern times; and if that did not make a man a Scotch Representative, when that majority was entirely composed of Scotchmen, he did not know what did.
    MR. MARK STEWART: The hon. Member has misunderstood what I said. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. TREVELYAN,continuing, said, that next to being a representative Scotch Member, the most important point was that a Member chosen to serve on this Committee should bring to bear on it an impartial mind. He appealed to the House whether he did not the other day speak for 20 minutes—the only Member who did speak for anything like that time—without disclosing to the House his opinion—[Laughter]—perhaps hon. Members would allow him to finish the sentence—without disclosing his opinion on the main question of what verdict the Committee ought to find. He had spoken on that occasion entirely on the question whether that verdict ought to be given by the House at large or by a Committee. If he had been able to speak in that manner, and leave an impression of impartiality on the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it showed that he had at least this qualification for sitting on the Committee, that he could bring to it an impartial judgment.
    MR. RITCHIEthought some answer should be given by the Government to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that some addition should be made to the Committee. He must congratulate the hon. Member who had just sat down on being able to waste the time of the House for 20 minutes without stating any opinion on the subject which the House was discussing. ["Order!"] That was what he understood the hon. Gentleman claimed to have done. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House took great credit for having placed on this Committee a large proportion of the minority in that House as compared with the numbers they represented. Anybody listening to the right hon. Gentleman would have thought the credit of the composition of this Committee was entirely due to him; but hon. Members must know that the usual mode of striking a Committee had been followed, and that the new-fangled notion he suggested at the beginning of the evening of making the Committee according to the political opinions of the majority of the House was not in accordance with the practice of the House. Certainly the right hon. Gentleman did not, in the last Parlia-
    658
    ment, suggest such a composition of any Committee; and, therefore, they might suppose that his opinion on this, as on many other matters, had altogether changed since he was in Opposition. As far as he himself was concerned, he would have very much preferred that this Committee should not be composed so largely of lawyers. The late Committee was composed almost exclusively of lawyers. Perhaps it was necessary that they should be there; but, looking at the fact that the opinion of almost every lawyer he had heard outside the House was that, as far as the legal question was concerned, Mr. Bradlaugh had not a leg to stand, upon, he confessed that the opinions then expressed by the Law Officers of the Crown did not inspire him with any great amount of confidence. His opinion as to this Committee was still further shaken by the remarks made the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), whom he understood to say that, finding some lawyers on each side, he thought it best to give Mr. Bradlaugh the benefit of the doubt, as far as he was concerned. As far as the remarks of the Leader of the House referred to questions of nationality, he ventured to say there was no body of men who felt more interested in this matter than the right hon. Gentleman's constituents. Therefore he would urge the claims of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents to a fair share in the constitution of this Committee. The suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition was worthy of consideration; and if the Government would consent to the addition of two Members, one of whom should be his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), probably his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would not be disposed to divide the House. If, however, this concession were not made, he hoped his hon. Friend would press his Motion to a division.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought they ought to be perfectly clear as to what had passed, and also as to the constitution of the Committee. First of all, he would say a few words respecting what had passed in reference to the statement of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Now, he wished to state distinctly that in the original draft arrangement for the con-

    659
    stitution of the smaller Committee the name of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was included as one of those who were to represent the other side of the House. That name was struck out at the desire of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), and the name of the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) put in instead. Afterwards, when it was proposed to increase the Committee, no doubt communications passed between his right hon. Friend and those sitting on the Government side, and no doubt his right hon. Friend did propose to add to the Committee three Gentlemen from the Conservative side of the House. His right hon. Friend named three Members sitting on the front Bench by him—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir Richard Cross), the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard). Of those three names two had been placed on the additional list, inasmuch as it had been determined that only four Members should be added to the Committee. Two out of the three Gentlemen named by his right hon. Friend were put on the list, and the list so agreed upon was definitely agreed upon by him through the mouth of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Mid-Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), who managed these matters on behalf of his right hon. Friend opposite. Therefore, anything approaching even to the scintilla of a suspicion of bad faith on that side of the House was entirely unfounded. With reference to what had been said on the other side concerning nationalities and creeds, he wished to call attention to this important fact. The proposed Committee consisted of 23 Members, 11 of whom belonged to the Conservative Party. A great deal had been said this evening as to the unfair division as respects nationality and religion. Well, out of these 11 Conservatives no fewer than 10 were Englishmen and Members of the Established Church, and the eleventh was an Irishman—namely, the late Attorney General for Ireland, a member of the same Church. Therefore those who struck the Committee on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite had taken
    660
    great care that the whole of their Members, with one single exception, should be Englishmen, and all Church of England men. If, then, any Party were to blame for Ireland and Scotland not being sufficiently represented, it was distinctly the fault of the other side of the House. On the Government side three Gentlemen were proposed who were either Nonconformists or represented Nonconformist constituents. These were his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan), his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright). Besides these there were his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Major Nolan), who was an Irishman and a Roman Catholic, the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon), who was a Member of the Hebrew persuasion, and the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), who represented a Scotch constituency. Thus of the 12 Gentlemen named on the Government side six were Englishmen and, he believed, members of the Established Church, and the other six represented Ireland or Scotland or Nonconformist opinion. There was a fair division as far as the Government side were concerned. It was remarkable that those who had secured on their own side the exclusive representation of English opinion and of the Church of England should make these complaints, even after their own Whips and their own Leaders had formally concurred in the appointment.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEhoped the House would allow him to make a few remarks of a personal character. With regard to the earlier part of the transactions to which reference had been made his right hon. Friend's statement was perfectly correct. With regard to the subsequent transactions he wished to observe that he brought no charge of breach of faith against anyone in the composition of this Committee. But it was remarked just now on that side of the House that it was to be lamented that the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) was not on the Committee, whereupon a reply was made to the effect that that was the doing of his own friends, who withdrew him. He

    661
    did not concur in that statement. As far as his own knowledge was concerned, there was no such withdrawal; but he at the same time stated that he was not aware of all that had passed between his right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke) and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury. He was only able to speak of his own knowledge up to this point—that when he left the House last night he spoke to his right hon. Friend the Member for MidKent, expressing his wish that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Launceston should be placed on the Committee if the matter could be arranged. His right hon. Friend undertook to speak to the noble Lord on the subject. He never heard the result of that conversation, and when he saw the list he thought that it had not been deemed possible to increase the number of Members to be put on the Committee, and that on that account the name of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston was not placed upon it. But he wished distinctly to say that there had been no intention on the part of those who sat near him to withdraw the name of the hon. and learned Member for Launceston if it could possibly be put on the Committee. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) had no doubt that the matter was discussed between his right hon. Friend (Sir William Hart Dyke) and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Richard Grosvenor); but he had not heard the result of their discussion.
    MR. OTWAYdoubted whether it would be possible, in constituting a Committee of that kind, to give entire satisfaction to the House. They might almost as well expect to give entire satisfaction by the constitution of a Government. The attainment of that entire satisfaction had not been made more probable by the description they had had given them of that Committee as being composed of almost all the eminent Members of the House. He saw around him some hon. Members who, though not included in the proposed list, might fairly rank among the distinguished Members. In the formation of that Committee, however, he believed that the usual practice of the House during the last quarter of a century had been followed. It seemed to him that, if the House interfered too much in the arrangement of the Gentlemen who were mainly ap-
    662
    pointed for the formation of Committees, the result would be almost inextricable confusion. But, although he was prepared to adhere to the arrangement which had been come to, he could not but regret the preponderance that was given to the legal element in the constitution of the Committee, because the question about to be referred to them had assumed somewhat the form of a House of Commons' question. Recalling the circumstances under which the claim of the hon. Member for Northampton now presented itself to them, he asked whether the House of Commons, as the guardians of their own rules, should not be more largely represented than they were on that Committee? It was impossible to conceal from themselves that that was not a purely legal question; and if the decision of the Committee should be based on narrow and legal grounds it would fail to give satisfaction. If, therefore, the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition were modified to this extent, that two or three Members not belonging to the Legal Profession, but representing the independent and lay element, be added to the Committee, although its numbers were already large, that would get them out of their difficulty.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDthought that the composition of the Committee had been argued with an unnecessary degree of warmth. If, indeed, the Committee were one whose Report would be definitive and conclusive of the whole question, then he should have understood the extreme anxiety manifested in regard to its constitution. But he took an entirely different view of the province and the functions of the Committee. The Committee were to inquire both into the legal aspect of the question and into the circumstances which attended it; and their Report would be presented to the House, which would afterwards be perfectly free to pronounce its own decision on the matter. Therefore, he did not entertain the same horror of its including so many lawyers as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to do. The lawyers on both sides would pretty well balance each other, and they would well thrash out the question referred to them. He reserved to himself entire freedom of judgment when the Report of the Committee came before him; and it was because he held that the Committee would

    663
    not bind him at all that he did not feel any alarm as to its constitution.
    MR. VILLIERS-STUARTsaid, he concurred in the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Shaw) respecting the inadequate proportion of Irishmen and Roman Catholics on the Committee; but he hoped that it might be in the power of the First Lord of the Treasury to sanction the addition of another Irish Representative to the Members about to serve upon it. He should not, however, feel disposed to object to the number of lawyers on the Committee, as he held that the question to be decided was a purely legal one; for it had to decide whether any form of words which Mr. Bradlaugh might use would constitute an oath—he might advance to that Table and shock the feelings of hon. Members by taking the solemn words in vain that would constitute in the eyes of many an act of blasphemy; but it might be doubted whether it would constitute an oath.
    COLONEL MAKINShoped that the Government would accept the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that a fairer representation on the Committee should be given to various nationalities. By adding two or three more names they might have on the Committee a Member for Scotland, another for Ireland, and another for Wales. If Scotland was to have one Representative on the Committee, he ought, at any rate, to be a real Scotchman.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEwished only to make a short personal explanation. He did not intend to vote in that division, simply because his name was on the list of Members proposed for the Committee; and he thought it would be in better taste if he abstained from even appearing to pronounce any opinion on the selection of the Gentlemen who were to serve upon it.
    SIR HENRY TYLERcomplained that no distinct understanding had been arrived at between the two sides of the House. He regretted that a question which involved the highest principles, human and divine, had been made a Party question by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was impossible not to regret the absence of so important a name as that of the late Solicitor General from the proposed Committee; and he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H.
    664
    Drummond Wolff) would not withdraw his Motion unless the hon. and learned Gentleman was appointed a Member of the Committee. He should like also to know what was the nature of the instructions to be given to the Committee, and whether Mr. Bradlaugh was to be represented by counsel or not?
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not think the question of the Committee need be put as a question of one country more than another. The idea of religious representation need not be necessarily dominant; but still it should be kept in mind. The Catholics constituted one-sixth of the whole community; there were about 50 Catholic Members in that House; and he was of opinion these facts had not been kept in mind in the constitution of the Committee, for only one Irish Member had been nominated in a Committee of 23. He should vote for the adjournment of the debate as a protest against that action on the part of the Government.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 256: Majority 156.—(Div. List, No. 8.)
    Original Question again proposed, "That the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members."
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought that after the discussions which had taken place, and the statements which had been made, there was great reason why the Committee should be increased, and moved accordingly that it consist of 27 Members.
    SIR HENRY TYLERseconded the Motion.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Twenty-three," in order to insert the words "Twenty-seven."—(Sir Walter Barttelot,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Twenty-three' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not agree with this proposition without an opportunity of considering it. At the same time, he did not wish to preclude hon. Members from attempting to increase the numbers of the Committee. He thought that if they voted that 23 Members be appointed, and then proceeded with the names before the House, hon. Members would not be prevented

    665
    from moving subsequent additions to the Committee. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would allow the House to proceed to the nomination of the Committee. It was a serious matter indefinitely to increase the numbers of a Committee at different times; and the Government would, therefore, reserve to themselves the right of refusing to accede to any proposals that might be made in that direction.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTagreed to withdraw his Amendment, saying that on Monday he should move for an increase of the Committee.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. RITCHIEassumed—andhe hoped he was right in his assumption—that until after the House had an opportunity of deciding on the hon. and gallant Baronet's proposal to enlarge the Committee it would not proceed to business. There ought to be a distinct understanding upon this point.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not a Member of the Committee, and therefore could not give any pledge or promise with regard to its future proceedings. He felt satisfied, however, that the Committee would only do what was right and fair; and if it met to transact preliminary business, such as the election of Chairman, and arranging the course of procedure, the action of the Committee would be without prejudice to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot).
    MR. NEWDEGATEintimated that he was dissatisfied with the powers which the Committee were to have, and that he should in consequence abstain from taking any part in the question of the composition of that body.
    MAJOR NOLANwas of opinion that it would be convenient to have 29 Members on the Committee, as they could then have two Irish Members on it, a thing easier to arrange than the choice of one.
    MR. HERMONasked whether the Committee would be precluded from sitting if hon. Members should now give Notice of the names they intended to move to add to the Committee He asked this question because he understood his hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his Amendment in the belief that he would have an opportunity of proposing additional names before any action on the part of the Committee.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOThoped the Prime Minister would give the House an assurance that the Committee would not sit until the settlement of the question which he had raised.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had no power in the matter. He apprehended that the House, in appointing a Committee, usually left to the discretion of that Committee the determination of any question that might arise in reference to the propriety of its manner of procedure. The present point, he thought, would have to be left to the Committee's discretion; and he was of opinion that there was little likelihood of any serious difficulty arising affecting the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member.
    SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAYpointed out that it was in the power of the right hon. Gentleman himself to secure that the Committee should not meet before Tuesday, and said he had no doubt the House would be satisfied with his assurance that it would not be summoned to meet until after the decision of the House with regard to the naming of additional Members was taken on Monday.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the Committee would have power to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to be heard by counsel? In his opinion, he ought to be entitled to that privilege; and, if necessary, an instruction might be given to the Committee to that effect.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if he were a Member of the Committee it might, perhaps, fall to his lot to take part in the summoning of it. He was not, as he had said, a Member of it, and had no power to interfere in its proceedings. As to the application to be heard by counsel, the proper course, he believed, would be that, such application having been made, it would be considered by the Committee, who would then report upon it to the House.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, that, although the right hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for War as well as the two Law Officers of the Government were; and he was sure that if any one of them were to give an assurance that the Committee would not meet before Tuesday

    667
    the House would be quite satisfied with such an undertaking.
    MR. COURTNEYasked the Speaker, as a matter of Order, whether the question of adding new names to the list of the Committee would take precedence of other Business fixed for Monday, or come at its close?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Committee having been appointed, the question of adding new names to the list of that Committee would not take precedence of the other Business as a matter of Privilege.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that being so, he would take care that the regular Business was so arranged that the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) should come on at a convenient hour.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members.
    Committee nominated:—Mr. WHITBREAD, Sir JOHN HOLKER, Mr. JOHN BRIGHT, Lord HENRY LENNOX, Mr. MASSET, Mr. STAYELEY HILL, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Mr. GRANTHAM, Mr. PEMBERTON, Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. HOPWOOD, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, Major NOLAN, Mr. CHAPLIN, Mr. Serjeant SIMON, Mr. Secretary GUILDERS, Mr. TREVELYAN, Sir RICHARD CROSS, and Mr. GIBSON:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to tie the quorum.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  ARMY—ARMY EXAMINATIONS.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAMrose, pursuant to Notice, to call the attention of the House to the unsatisfactory conditions under which the preliminary examinations of candidates for the Army were conducted. Owing to the large number who were brought together on those occasions, and especially the large number who were dictated to at one time, great inconvenience was very often the result. He would specially refer in support of
    668
    that statement to what occurred on the 7th or 8th of April. On that occasion as many as 400 young men were gathered together in the same place for examination, the questions of the examiners were frequently received with ironical cries of "Hear, hear;" and he had received complaints from candidates who had been prevented from hearing the examiner's questions by the wilful noise made by the others, who were allowed to go into the upper galleries and there whistle, and, by other annoyances, disturb the people at work below. In these circumstances, he wished to point out that it would be well if the examinations could be conducted in a separate, and not in a vast chamber like that at South Kensington; and he hoped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be directed to the subject.
    MR. C. S. PARKER,while bearing testimony to the pains taken by the Civil Service Commissioners to employ skilled Examiners, concurred with the hon. Gentleman in the opinion that the Albert Hall was not a fit place for dictation. He had heard that during the examination persons other than candidates were allowed to walk about in the Hall. He should be glad, if these and other such examinations were to be continued on so large a scale as they were at present, if his right hon. Friend, or whoever else was responsible, could see his way to securing a more convenient place beforehand.
    MR. CHILDERSstated, from the terms of the Notice he had no idea to what point in connection with the preliminary examinations of officers the hon. Member intended to refer; but what he had said related to matters of which the War Office had no official knowledge, the arrangements complained of being under the sole responsibility of the Civil Service Commissioner. He would, however, bring the complaint of the two hon. Members under their notice; and he would feel obliged if the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham) would send him any letters, with precise facts communicated to him, which he would undertake should not prejudice the writer. No doubt, there was a great want of convenient buildings in London for public examinations—probably the most convenient being at Greenwich Hospital.
    COLONEL STANLEYthought the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Cumberland was fully justified in bringing the matter before the House; but he considered that it might be very satisfactorily left to the Civil Service Commissioners.
    Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," agreed to.

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

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  (1.) £11,395, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.

  (2.) £46,665, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.

  (3.) £13,141, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.

  (4.) £20,195, to complete the sum for the Patent Office.

  (5.) £19,255, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.

  (6.) £7,695, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission and West India Islands Belief Commission.

  (7.) £15,737, to complete the sum for the Record Office.

  (8.) £35,870, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.

  (9.) £344,979, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.

  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Supplementary Estimate voted at the commencement of the last Session of the late Parliament was entered in that Estimate? It amounted to over £30,000, and there appeared to be no comparison between the expenditure of last year and that of the present. It was stated that a large part of that sum was due for Foreign Office printing and other items. He felt sure, if anyone would take the trouble to look over the expenditure of the Stationery Department, he would certainly find that there was no tendency to decrease; but, on the contrary, that expenditure had increased last year considerably. The Committee, of which the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Rowland Winn) was President, looked into all these accounts and stated
  670
  in their Report that they, the House of Commons, ought to have a much more detailed account of the different sums expended in the different Offices. Unless they could have such a statement as that annually placed before them, he felt sure it would be impossible to know how the money voted was expended. The sums required by those different Offices had considerably increased, and he felt bound to say that he feared there must be a good deal of waste and reckless expenditure. His belief and conviction was that many of those Votes, enormous in size, might be cut down with advantage. He did not wish to add anything further, except that he felt sure that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury, like those that had preceded him, would endeavour to exercise a watchful care over that expenditure. The hon. Member, also, who had presided over the Stationery Committee had taken a great interest in that matter, and could furnish valuable information. If the noble Lord turned his attention to the subject of that Estimate, he thought that the Estimate for next year might be less than that for this year.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was perfectly right, when he said that those Estimates required most careful watching, not only by the Secretary to the Treasury, but also by hon. Members of that House, who were responsible for the amount charged. But he thought his hon. and gallant Friend was in error with reference to the Supplementary Vote of this year. That Vote, which was taken last Session, referred to the year ending the 31st March last, and had nothing to do with the present year they were now providing for. Instead of an increase, there was a decrease of £480. To make a fair comparison, they must add the Supplementary Vote to last year's ordinary expenditure; in that case, there was a decrease in every detail instead of an increase. He should wish to have more of a detailed account from the different Offices, inasmuch as it was impossible to obtain anything more than an approximation in an Estimate such as they had before them.
  MR. WHITWELLsaid, he was glad that his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had called at-

  671
  tention to that subject. It was very right that someone should do so. But he thought, in such a matter as they were then considering, a debtor and creditor account should be furnished to them, with the balance shown. There were, he saw, receipts estimated at £43,000, which wore shown in a Vote in small print, and there were various other items so shown which came into the Exchequer by other channels. He thought that all such items should be clearly and correctly set forth. Such sums, he contended, ought not to be shown in a small note at the foot of a page; but it should be conspicuously set forth as receipts derivable from other sources.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that all the information required by the hon. Member was contained in the Appropriation Account. It was impossible to have an accurate and detailed account in the Estimate; but the Appropriation Account showed everything in detail. At any rate, he would promise the Committee that the question of economizing in the Stationery Department should be carefully considered.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £17,400, to complete the sum for the Woods, Forests, &c. Office.
  (11.) £30,618, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.
  (12.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £17,200, 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 Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.
  Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should like to ask how the money under that Vote was distributed between the different Offices of the Secretary of State?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISEsaid, that the information he possessed with reference to that matter was extremely limited. As far as he knew, the greater portion of the money was spent by the Department under the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Mr. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, they were anxious to discover what amount of Secret Service money was spent in Ireland, although they did not ask for minute details. The people of Ireland
  672
  had an idea that a large proportion of that Vote was spent in that country, and that it was put to demoralizing and corrupting uses. There was a good deal of feeling in that matter, on account of what had occurred in previous years. He would only mention one or two instances—one was, that some years ago a lawyer, who had been retained by a number of Irish political prisoners, was taken into the pay of the Government, and induced to betray the confidence of his own clients. That fact became historical, and it was one of those facts which accounted for the peculiar affection with which British rule was regarded by the people of that country. On another and more recent occasion, an individual in the pay of the Government drew his income from that fund whilst engaged in detecting a conspiracy in Ireland. He first brought Irishmen into his toils, and betrayed them afterwards. To such an extent did he carry this practice, that he visited Catholic churches, and actually went so far as to take the Sacrament, in order the more completely to deceive and mislead his dupes. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) thought that the Irish people ought to know to what extent that corrupting money was being passed through that country, for, as long as money was expended for such purposes, so long would there be crime in Ireland. Money appeared to have been voted by Parliament in order that such men as he had referred to might be rewarded, and so many criminals be brought into the meshes of the law. They did not ask for minute details; but it was desirable, in the interests of justice, that they should have some idea as to the amount of money spent in paying spies and informers in Ireland.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to support the application of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that the Government should afford some information as to the distribution of the Secret Service money. It certainly appeared strange to him that in the present age of the world and state of political progress, when the country prided itself on the frankness with which its Public Business was conducted, that it should be necessary to resort to the public purse for money to be employed in secret service. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury had assured the Committee that a large portion was

  673
  placed at the disposal of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. That intimation was, so far as it went, satisfactory; but he thought it was due to the Irish Members that some information should be given as to how much was spent in Ireland, inasmuch as he believed he was correct in stating that no item was regarded with more suspicion than the one then under discussion. The Government of Ireland were in possession of various sources of information; they had their magistracy, paid and unpaid, and their Police Force, besides professional agents and numerous bodies of amateur agents, who rivalled their professional brethren in zeal and assiduity. Considering the abundant means of information at the disposal of the Government, he thought it only fair to the Irish Members that the amount expended in Ireland should be made known to them.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVNEDISHrecognized the difficulty there was in not being able to give the required information. He could only say that the sum voted had been constantly diminishing during late years, and still continued to diminish. If the hon. Member who had asked for the information (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would refer to the Appropriation Account he would find that that was so. In the year 1877–8 nearly one-half had been re-paid into the Exchequer, and in the following year £5,000 was not expended. It was most desirable that the sum should be voted, but absolutely impossible that the information required could be afforded to the Committee. It was necessary that confidence should be placed in the hands of those who had to dispense it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he believed he was correct in stating that the Auditor General, in his audit of that Vote, took certificates or receipts from the different Secretaries of State for large sums; and, therefore, he was unable to show in his statement anything more than the lump sums received by those various Secretaries. All that he asked was, what were the details of that distribution? In so far as the sums were limited to each of the different Departments the information could not be obtained by reference to the Appropriation Account; and, therefore, that information he must urge upon the Secretary to the Treasury to afford him, in order that he might not be driven to
  674
  divide the Committee upon that Vote. The Secretary to the Treasury had referred to the Appropriation Account. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) held that account in his hand. In last year there was, out of the sum voted for Secret Service, a saving of £5,000; but he wished to point out that there was also a further sum of £10,000 employed in the same Service, which had been drawn out of the Consolidated Fund. In reality, therefore, instead of there being a saving of £5,000, that Secret Service Vote was exceeded by the sum of £5,000. He must urge upon some Representative of the Government to afford him the information with regard to the distribution of that money, otherwise he should be obliged to move for a reduction in the Vote by the sum the Appropriation Account showed last year to be unnecessary—namely, £5,753.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was in error in stating that the sum granted by Parliament had been exceeded. There were two sums granted by Parliament; one upon the Consolidated Fund, and the other upon the annual Votes. Those two sums must be carefully distinguished. With respect to the first, in an ordinary year the whole of the sum not spent was returned into the Exchequer; and with respect to the second, the sum spent showed a decrease from that of the former year. But when the hon. Member said he should move to reduce the Vote by £5,000, because that amount had been returned into the Exchequer, he hoped that he would not take that course, inasmuch as it was impossible to do anything more discouraging to the parties intrusted with the expenditure, who were returning as much as possible into the Exchequer, than for them to find that Members of Parliament, the instant they saw the money returned, assumed that the amount expended was the maximum necessary for the charge, and that they proposed to cut down the Vote accordingly at once. It must be obvious, from the nature of the work and the exigencies of the Government, particularly in foreign countries, that it would be impossible to make an exact Estimate from time to time. He did not wish them to think that he was particularly fond of that fund; but when they looked at the matter they would see that it was not a fund which could

  675
  be parted with altogether. Still it was satisfactory to see that a considerable reduction had been made. He did not think, however, that it would be politic on the part of his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish), even if he were in possession of all the particulars, to lay clown fixed lines with regard to the distribution of that Fund throughout the Public Departments. If there was a sum granted out of that Vote for Ireland, he believed it was a very small sum; but, at any rate, he was bound to say that he considered that the expenditure of money under that Vote ought to be dealt with at the discretion of the Government, and that if the House of Commons had confidence in the Government they would feel sure that in all eases in which money was expended it was found absolutely necessary to do so. Although the amount required under that Vote was a small one, yet, considering its nature, he thought it would be obvious how unwise it would be to make the details public. If it had been a question for the House of Commons only, it would be a simple matter; but the hon. Member who had made the request must be aware that talking to the House of Commons was, in fact, talking to the world. That being so, he trusted that the hon. Member would be content that the money expended of late was greatly diminished, and that he would not conclude that the fact of money being returned into the Exchequer at the end of any year showed that the amount expended was the maximum required, but rather that that amount was to be defined as the expenditure for that particular year.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the Committee had been asked to vote a sum out of the Estimates amounting to £23,000 for Secret Service money, and that an additional grant of £10,000 had been already charged upon the Consolidated Fund for the same purpose. But he thought that they were placed at a considerable disadvantage, on account of the absence of the information which had been applied for by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). That hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the Controller and Auditor General audited that Secret Service money upon receipts furnished to him by the different Secretaries of State. He had asked the Government to inform him as to the differ-
  676
  ent sums paid to the different Secretaries of State; and he (Mr. Parnell) thought that a reasonable request and an application for information which would not trench upon the secrecy of the Vote, if they were told what amount was spent in Ireland. They did not ask for the amount spent in England, or Scotland; but, certainly, he could not but think that if the Government deemed it necessary to maintain the existence of that degrading and debasing fund in the Three Kingdoms, the Committee was entitled to know how much had been spent in those Three Kingdoms. They knew that in times past the money obtained from that fund had been put in Ireland to most demoralizing purposes. They knew that in 1865–6 Inspector Talbot was paid to bend the knee at the altar of Roman Catholic churches, in order, being himself a Protestant, to simulate the faith of the majority, and thus more easily to induce the people to become members of secret organizations, who, when they had become members, were handed over by this same man, who had himself drawn them in, to the officers of justice. They knew, also, that other persons besides that informer had imitated his example, and had taken the pay of the Government, in order to swear in persons, and induce them to offend against the laws of the country. He thought, under these circumstances, that they were entitled to ask the responsible Ministers of the Crown how much of that money had been spent during last year in Ireland, and how much it was proposed to spend there during the coming year. That would not be betraying the secrecy the Government desired to preserve. They were entitled to know how much was to be spent in any one particular country. He did not wish to dispute the proposition that it was advisable, under the circumstances, that Ministers should have the power to spend the money in the way of Secret Service without rendering account; but he did strongly dispute the desirability of enabling subordinates to do so. He could not conceive of a more demoralizing application of money; and, therefore, he thought that if the Government had not the required information in their possession, they might fairly ask that that Vote be postponed until they knew how it was applied; because, until the Government knew how much was spent in that way,

  677
  he did not see how they could be sufficiently judges as to the desirability of the present grant. It was reasonable to move the reduction of the Vote in the absence of the information, as they should like to have an opportunity of protesting against the application of that money in Ireland. What information was in the hands of the Government he considered they were entitled to. He felt most strongly disposed to ask that Progress be reported, in order that they might obtain more full information from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the disposal of the money of that Fund.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that the money for the Secret Service Fund was asked to be voted in a lump; but what he wanted was that there should be a separate statement for Irish Secret Service money only. He strongly objected to the Fund for this reason—that there was a strong suspicion that abuses were committed in its expenditure, inasmuch as in Ireland, in times past, there had been great abuses. The case of Talbot, which had been referred to by the hon. Member who had preceded him (Mr. Parnell), had created a very bad impression in Ireland against the Government, which was a Constitutional Government, and he felt that that case had justly created a bad impression. He had heard of a man in the pay of the Government going down to two or three country districts, and not merely ingratiating himself into the secrets of the people, but it had been proved, further, that he swore in Fenians, and represented himself as an agent for that purpose. During the whole of that time he had been supported by that Secret Service money. In addition to his other acts, he represented himself to be a Catholic, went to the altars of the Catholic churches, and actually received the Sacrament. Nothing like the horror of the people of Ireland, when they discovered the truth about the man, and that he was directly in the pay of the Government, could be imagined. It was necessary for a man to be an Irishman and a Catholic in order to understand the horror of the people when that discovery took place If hon. Gentlemen on the other side could only realize the hatred and horror felt against the Government on account of the money spent in that Service, they would see how un-
  678
  wise it was that such money should be voted for any such purpose for carrying on the Government in Ireland. He strongly objected to the money of such a fund being left for administration in the hands of subordinate persons such as Talbot. He was sure that no state of things could be worse than that, or more calculated to bring discredit on the Government with reference to the administration of affairs in Ireland. They did not ask for the amounts expended in other countries; but they did wish to know what was spent in their own. Their object was to have a check upon the amount given to the different Offices, and he trusted that the information asked for might be given.
  MR. BARRYsaid, they were merely asking for the amount spent in Ireland. There could, he thought, be no objection to furnishing that information; and, therefore, he considered they were not asking too much. He was glad to have noticed that some hon. Members on the other side were interested in that question as well as Irish Members. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had made strenuous efforts to reduce that Vote. He (Mr. Barry) was sorry the hon. Member was not in his place then, because he was fully convinced that he would support the Irish Members in their contention that the amount spent in their country should be stated. They knew that in former times an infamous newspaper had been maintained in Dublin out of that Fund. He did not, however, say that that was the case now. He trusted that the Government would see their way to furnish the information that had been called for, and thus that the public mind in Ireland might be disabused.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he felt bound to state that he should look with horror at anything that could be done similar to what the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had stated. It was a long time ago that money for Secret Service or otherwise could be employed to stimulate men in order that they might be arrested. Personally, he should be glad if the request of the hon. Members could be complied with; but he did not see how the information could be given with respect to Ireland, and refused in other instances. If such particulars were given, the character of

  679
  secrecy would be gone. However, he did not see, if the information were not forthcoming, any reason why Progress should be reported. The Fund had reached as large a figure in former times as £150,000; and he was glad to see, in comparison with that, such a small amount as was now asked for. He hoped that the time would come when they would be able to do without it altogether; but he did not believe that that time had yet arrived. He must ask the Committee to vote the money, leaving it to the discretion of the Government. If reliance could not be placed in them for the expenditure of such a fund as that, they were not fit to occupy the seats in that House that they then occupied.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that with reference to the employment of the Secret Service Fund, it appeared to him that the money had been used for illegal purposes. He was glad to see on the Treasury Bench the Legal Representative of the Irish Government, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Law). He was glad, also, to find that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not experienced the difficulties that had obstructed the return of some right hon. Gentlemen to that House. He wished to appeal to him on the legal aspect of the matter they were then discussing. It was notorious that Police Inspector Talbot was paid by the Government to induce young men to enter an illegal combination; and he should like to know what attitude the Government of Ireland would assume, if, in the recent land agitation, a similar thing had been attempted by persons in the pay of the Government? For instance, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland take no notice of such proceedings as those of Talbot; would he not feel it his duty to prosecute a Police Inspector who was a party to transactions of that kind? He was sure that an expression of opinion in reference to such conduct would be very welcome. They had had one expression of opinion from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, certainly, so far as it went, it was satisfactory; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had no doubt that as long as the Irish Government was in the hands of the then Chief Secretary he would
  680
  not be a party to sanctioning such practices. A complaint had been made of the expenditure of Secret Service money in Ireland; and there appeared to be no doubt that, in times past, money had been spent there for the purposes of the kind he had mentioned. With reference to its employment in England for similar purposes, he supposed that most of the hon. Members present had received circulars sent round by organizations whose chief interest was to report on the Contagious Diseases Acts. There was an instance of the employment of police for the purpose of carrying out certain provisions of those Acts; and, certainly, it did appear as if police were paid by the Government in order to induce other people to do what was illegal. These were matters that demanded their serious attention, and he thought it was due to the Irish Members to be informed to what extent such practices were permitted in Ireland. He should be glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) say something upon the subject.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he had but a small knowledge upon the matter under consideration, nor was he aware that Inspector Talbot had been paid out of that Fund. He was inclined to the opinion rather that, being a detective, and therefore a member of the Police Force, he was paid as a detective in the ordinary way. With reference to the question which had been asked by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), he felt perfectly free to state, notwithstanding the position he then held, that in case any policeman, or other detective, assisted in or encouraged the commission of crime, he would certainly be considered to have exceeded his duty; and if he induced people to enter illegal combinations for the purpose of disclosing them afterwards, he would most assuredly place himself within the meshes of the law, and ought to be prosecuted. He considered that while that Fund remained in existence they ought not to be compelled to give the details of it, for, in that case, its character of secrecy would certainly be lost. He thought hon. Gentlemen ought to be satisfied with the statement of the Government that it would be their object

  681
  to reduce the amount of that Fund to the lowest possible figure.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought it desirable that the Government should have time to examine into the uses made of that money by their Predecessors in Office. It was possible that when they had inquired into the matter they might be able to give the Committee some information as to the employment of the Fund in the Three Kingdoms. If that information could be afforded, it would have the effect of getting rid of the annual debates that took place as to the administration of that money. If the Government should find, on examining into the employment of the money by their Predecessors, that the Vote was unnecessary, it might be at once done away with. He thought that the request he had made was not unreasonable—namely, that the Committee might know how much was spent in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, that the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) was, to him, an additional reason for supporting the Motion before the Committee. If the money spent under that Vote in Ireland was not for the detection of crime, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had implied, for what purposes was it employed? If they were to form an opinion as to its employment, from the history of the Government of Ireland in former times, he was afraid they would have a sad record to retrace—a record which would show actions of Governments in previous times by no means creditable to them. They were not inclined to suspect the Government then in Office at all, even after the position they took up that night before the Committee. They did not believe that the money would be misspent by either the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. He thought, however, that there were strong reasons why the Government should free themselves from the evil suspicions which must inevitably attach to the expenditure of that money in Ireland. If the different sums granted to the Secretaries of State were known, it would not be difficult to follow the expenditure of those sums with regard to Ireland, and they would then have the satisfaction
  682
  of knowing that the money was not applied to illegal purposes. If the information that had been called for were given, the confidence of the Irish people would be won by the Government, and when he considered the evil precedents in the expenditure of that money in former times, he could not imagine how it was that the Government could refrain from sacrificing upon the shrine of Irish confidence the paltry Vote of £4,000 or £5,000, which they had then asked for, for the purpose of Secret Service.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he should move that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, in order that the Government might have more time for the consideration of that question. He thought that the request that the consideration of the matter be postponed for further information was not unreasonable, looking at all the circumstances of the case, and the fact that the Government did not appear to possess the information asked for with reference to the distribution of the Fund between the different Secretaries of State.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 102: Majority 85.—(Div. List, No. 9.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. PARNELLmoved the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,000, which he said was the amount not expended out of the grant made for similar purposes last year.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £12,200, 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 Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."—(Mi: Parnell.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 91: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 10.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERconfessed that he did not understand upon what grounds several distinguished Members

  683
  of the House, who were very persistent in opposing this Vote in the last Parliament, had been able to vote for it on the present occasion. He had had the honour, under the direction of the Chairman, of acting as a Teller in the division which had just taken place, and it was his duty to tell the minority. He found, however, that there were only three Liberal Members who gave a proof of their consistency in the matter by voting now in the same way they voted in 1879—namely, the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). He had been glad to recognize the presence of other English Liberal Members in the same Lobby; but they were all new Members. Other English Liberal Members, from the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) down to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), were conspicuous by their absence from the Committee, or, still worse, they were conspicuous by their presence in the opposite Lobby. Personally, he was very anxious to learn his Parliamentary lessons, and to learn them well; but he could not avoid asking himself what kind of lesson he was to draw from conduct of this nature? Only a few nights ago he had expressed a hope that Liberalism would not prove to be a paltry and selfish struggle for place and power; but if there were to be many repetitions of the political inconsistency he had noticed that evening, he would begin to think that he had been a little too sanguine in his hope, and that he was not warranted in believing that in Liberalism was evoked the sacred cause of liberty. He certainly was unable to account for the way in which some of the most active Liberals in the last Parliament now seemed to turn their backs upon the most sacred principles. At all events, it was desirable that those who were opposed to this Vote should persist in their protest against it. They were only a small Party, and, therefore, it was all the more necessary that they should be an energetic Party. If all the Liberal Members who supported them in the last Parliament had voted with them on the present occasion, they might have been contented with one division; but as they were reduced to
  684
  20, it was desirable that they should record their protest against the Vote in as emphatic a manner as possible. In the first instance, they made an attempt to postpone the Vote; but they were beaten. Next, they made an attempt to reduce the Vote, and they were beaten again. They intended now to take a division against the Vote in its entirety.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, that upon the ground of common sense he should be inclined at once to admit the principle that the Government must have a fund of this nature, because it was quite clear to men who had studied the history of the country that there were many matters, perhaps some of them unworthy, but others right and proper to be done, which it would not always be expedient to bring before the public. But, in the view of an Irish Member, there were certain conditions which rendered it utterly impossible for him to accede to this Vote for Secret Service money which cast a stigma on his country, and was capable of producing terrible results. As a Catholic Member he could not support the Vote, because he believed it might be employed in inducing a non-Catholic to go into the Catholic chapels and receive the Sacrament which Catholics believed to contain the Real Presence, and thus desecrate the Sacraments of the Church for the purpose of inveigling young men into a conspiracy against the very Government they served. He did not know how any Catholic could reconcile it to his conscience to throw a veil over such proceedings. He thought the opinion he had arrived at was based upon a very honourable and enlightened foundation. It was his duty, some time ago, in the Corporation of Dublin, when a member accused a certain friend of his of inciting persons to commit murder from the platform, to call upon that member to name the person and the place before such a diabolical charge was allowed to go forth. The gentleman in question found himself obliged, from want of accurate information, to withdraw the charge; and he afterwards told him (Mr. Dawson) that there were undoubtedly cries of the kind referred to in the crowd. But it might have been that the cries and incitements to murder came from people sent there by the Government, and paid out of this Secret Service Fund. The English nation, of all nations in the

  685
  world, prided itself above all things upon being perfectly clear, straightforward, and open in all its transactions, and they ought not to rest for an hour under the imputation of sanctioning a system of sending people to desecrate the Irish chapels, and inducing young men to commit crime. As the Representative of a country in which these sacred principles wore desecrated in the manner he had described, and having some feeling for the reputation of his countrymen, and believing that it was wrong to encourage people to go about inciting youth to commit murder and other crimes they would otherwise never dream of, he should feel it his duty to vote against the proposed grant. Those who were inclined to support that which was fair, open, manly, and noble, would join the Irish Members in their protest, and he was glad to see that as they went on their minority was increasing.
  DR. LYONSsaid, that as the discussion had taken that course, he felt it uncumbent upon him to say a few words. If he believed that any portion of this money was spent in Ireland for the purpose of corrupting the population he would vote against the whole of it; but he believed there was no proof whatever that the money had been so applied. He took it that the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), although he had not been able to give an absolute denial on this particular matter, was not made upon light authority, and really met the special case. Now, it so happened that he (Dr. Lyons) knew something of the circumstances of the death of that unfortunate man, Talbot, and he also knew from personal acquaintance with the City of Dublin that he was a member of the Detective Police Force. Of course, there were circumstances connected with that force, and circumstances necessarily connected with the discharge of the duties of the service that no one on abstract moral grounds could pretend to defend; but still they did not in this practical world profess to say that Governments could be set up and go on working upon purely hypothetical and abstract moral grounds. But the assertion was borne out by his experience that the greater part of this money was expended in the East of Europe, in the discharge of duties which were forced upon us principally from a
  686
  reason to which he had called attention some time ago—namely, that we had not a sufficient number of public servants who were capable of understanding the language of the country in which their services were discharged, and we were thus largely dependent on hired interpreters. If that were not unfortunately the case, he believed that a great deal of this money might be entirely dispensed with. He had been told by an illustrious and distinguished authority, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, that he was nothing but a political scavenger in the East. He (Dr. Lyons) fully believed that the chief purpose to which this money was principally applied in Constantinople, and other parts of the East had been in counteracting the falsehoods and mystifications which had to be contended with in regard to political matters in which money was lavishly used by other Powers. It was greatly to be regretted that money of this kind had to be voted; but he believed that the public service in Constantinople and other parts of Europe would absorb a great deal more, if it were not diligently watched. It had been his conviction, for many years past, that this money was not applied in Ireland at all. He did not yield to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), or to any other Irish Member, in his desire to see the Government of Ireland carried on in the most perfectly pure manner; and, owing to the mode in which the discussion had been carried on, he had felt it incumbent upon him to say that there was every reason to believe the money was not expended in Ireland, but was spent in connection with political matters in other parts of Europe.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the hon. Member for Dublin who had just spoken (Dr. Lyons) seemed to know a good deal more about the application of Secret Service money than the Gentlemen who sat on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member had entered upon a sort of explanation of it; but he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) failed to see any authority or justification for the hon Member's statements. Her Majesty's Government had certainly said nothing of the sort, but had carefully abstained from making any assertion of the kind. The Government of Ireland, with their 12,000 police scattered over the length and breadth of the country, and with

  687
  the extraordinary powers which the police possessed, ought to be capable of dealing with the crime of Ireland without bringing in the corrupting influence of Secret Service money. Reference had been made to Talbot, the informer, who was shot because he had made himself obnoxious by his criminal conduct, and had outraged every feeling dear to Irishmen—the most sacred feelings of the Irish heart. They had been told that he was a detective in the regular pay of the Government. If so, the conclusion they must arrive at was that Irish detectives were capable of doing enough dirty work without bringing in an additional force to do work still more vile. He regarded this money as demoralizing every man it touched, and he must beg to record his protest against its being granted by Parliament. So long as the money continued to be voted it would create occasions for its expenditure. It was a system which tended to perpetuate itself; and, in the interests of common morality and honesty, he protested against the employment of such a demoralizing fund in Ireland.
  MR. DILLWYNthought they were arguing very much in the dark. They certainly did not know that this money was expended in Ireland in corrupting the Irish people. He did not believe that it had been so spent. It had been stated, and he believed correctly stated, that the greater part of this money was required for foreign services, and he could easily understand that it might be so. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) complained of the Liberal Party for not having voted with him; but he (Mr. Dillwyn) would remind the hon. Member of the issue which had been raised. The hon. Member said the first proposition was to postpone the Vote, and the next to reduce it. Now, that was not exactly the case. The first proposition was not to postpone the consideration of the Vote; if it had been, perhaps others would have gone with the hon. Member; but the Motion was to report Progress. As he had just said, he would not, for one, vote for this money for the purpose of corrupting the people of Ireland, or corrupting anybody; but he must remind the Committee that they were voting now not for the Estimates of the present Government, but for those of the late Government. They were voting for Es-
  688
  timates which they were in reality bound to pass, in order that the service of the country might be properly carried on; but they must not forget that the Estimates submitted by the Government were the Estimates prepared by their Predecessors. He did not believe that Her Majesty's Ministers would expend the money in the way that had been described, and he did not believe they would ask for it, unless they were of opinion that it was required for the Public Service. He therefore intended to vote for the grant, having full confidence in the Government that they would not spend more than they absolutely required. He did not think they would ask for money if they did not believe it to be necessary; and, under these circumstances, and considering the exceptional nature of the Estimates, he would vote for the grant. But what he wished particularly to point out was that it was hardly fair for hon. Members to put the case as it had been put, and to propose the exceptional course at 8 o'clock in the evening of proposing, because they were not satisfied with a particular Vote, to report Progress, and thus prevent the remaining Estimates from receiving consideration. He thought the more legitimate course would have been to move the postponement of the Vote.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had moved to postpone the Vote, in order that the Government might have time to obtain information of which they were not now in possession. The explanation which the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had given of his vote on the question of reporting Progress did not apply to his vote on the last occasion. He found that on the 12th of May, 1879, the hon. Member, along with a large number of hon. Members who voted with the Government now, voted against the Government on a precisely similar Motion. The Motion he had just made was to reduce the Vote by £5,000, and in 1879 the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) moved to reduce the Vote by exactly the same sum. Of course, circumstances altered cases, and he found that in the 1879 Division List Mr. David Chadwick voted for the Motion; but strange to say, on the present occasion, the hon. Member voted against it. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain also voted in 1879 against the Motion,

  689
  and on the present occasion he voted in its favour. He found that Mr. Lewis Llewellyn Dillwyn then voted for the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley; and he exceedingly regretted to find that, on the present occasion, the hon. Member for Swansea walked through the Division Lobby against it. Mr. T. W. Evans also voted to reduce the sum by £5,000 in 1879, and in 1880 voted against such a reduction. Then, again, Sir Arthur D. Hayter voted in 1879 to reduce the amount, and this time he voted for intrusting the Government with the sum of £19,100 without reduction. Mr. J. Holms appeared in the Division List of 1879 as in favour of the reduction; but, on the present occasion, he (Mr. Parnell) was horrified to find the hon. Member for Hackney supporting the grant of the full amount. Mr. W. M'Arthur, Mr. D. M'Laren, Mr. G. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Anthony J. Mundella, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. J. Whitwell—that noted financial reformer—and Mr. B. T. Williams, all in 1879 voted for the reduction, and on the present occasion all these hon. Gentlemen voted against it. Now, he asked, where was political consistency? Hon. Members, when a Liberal Government came into Office, voted for intrusting them with a sum of money against which they voted on a former occasion. Where were their principles? It seemed to him that they had vanished. He should be very glad to hear that there was something in the composition of the present Government which enabled them to administer a sum of money of this kind better than their Predecessors. Was that the principle on which they voted the sum on the present occasion? ["Hear, hear!"] But they did not say so on the last occasion. If they contended that the Estimates had been put into the hands of the new Government by their Predecessors, and that they were obliged to vote them, he submitted that they were not obliged to do so. They were entitled to criticize them, and already the Government had agreed to one alteration. Last night a reduction of £5,000 was made in one of the Votes, and certainly they ought to be entitled to criticize and vote against any of the others just as much. He was glad to think that some hon. Members who formerly sat on that side of the House still preserved their political consistency,
  690
  and had not endangered their principles by walking across.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, this was exactly one of those cases in which he thought they should change with the times. If there was one Vote more than another which they voted with trust the Secret Service money was the one above all others. He voted against it last year because he had had experience of the Government. He had tried them some years, and he had lost confidence in them. Now they had got a new Government in whom he had great confidence, and he was willing to show them his confidence by intrusting them with this money. He was quite sure they would not misappropriate it, and if they did not require it they would hand it back.
  MR. LITTONsaid, he represented an Irish constituency, and if he believed that any portion of this money was applied to corrupt purposes he would oppose the grant, and would have pleasure in acceding to the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). But he was at a loss to know why that hon. Member, and those who sat with him, were so sensitive on this subject. He believed the loyalty of the people of Ireland was a subject of the greatest and highest importance; but it had not been shown to the Committee that any portion of the Secret Service Fund was proposed to be spent in Ireland for the purpose of corrupting the inhabitants of the country. Every Member of the Committee must be aware, as a matter of common sense, that in the administration of the government of any country there must be purposes to which no public fund was properly devoted, in keeping the authorities up to their work in regard to the peace of the country and the matters that came within the administration of the law. With great respect, he thought a fund so applied was devoted to a proper purpose—namely, in the support of law and order, and he did not hesitate to say that this was the great object which they ought to have in Ireland, because until this was accomplished with a just and liberal hand Ireland could not be prosperous. Therefore, he thought that the hon. Member for Cork had failed to show any reason why this money should be refused, and, after having already twice divided the Committee, to prolong the

  691
  debate would be to trifle with their patience.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTfully appreciated the principles of hon. Members who opposed a measure whilst they sat on this side of the House, and supported it when they sat on the opposite side; but he called the attention of the Committee to the remarks of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), which were to the effect that he was afraid of a misappropriation of the money by the late Government. He thought that was an imputation which no hon. Member had a right to cast upon the late Government. He protested against it, and he thought it only right that the hon. Member should withdraw an expression which, he presumed, fell from him in the heat of argument.
  MR. D. M'LARENadmitted that he voted against the grant last year, and said he was still of the same opinion. If a distinct Motion were brought forward for the bonâ fide purpose of testing the question, and when the question was decided, letting it alone, and going on with other Business, he would willingly vote for it again; but when it was brought forward in this way he would vote against it. As the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said, circumstances altered cases, and that was his defence. Here were the circumstances under which they were placed. The Government had recently come into power; they had a little more than two months of the Session of Parliament to run, and a great deal of Business to do, and Business in which the hon. Gentlemen opposite were greatly interested—the Business of Ireland; and it appeared to him that the time of the Committee had not been profitably spent that evening in discussing this question and dividing upon it over and over again in different phases. He had no sympathy at all with the way in which the Vote had been procrastinated, and least of all with the Motion to report Progress at that early hour.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House were very easily satisfied, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) was at liberty to deny that any of the money had been devoted to the payment of Talbot, that, therefore, none of it had been spent in Ireland.
  692
  The hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) said the right hon. and learned Gentleman had exhausted the subject; but did the hon. Member never hear of Pierce Nagle, the informer, or of Corrigan, Massey, and a whole string of informers who had nothing to do with the Police Force? Who paid that class of Government spies? They were paid out of the Secret Service Fund, and under a Liberal Administration. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) said it was a question of men with him, which amounted to a charge of downright dishonesty against political opponents; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) was sorry that the hon. Member, who usually showed so much generosity to those with whom he differed, should have defended himself on such a ground. There could be uo doubt at all as to the purposes for which Secret Service money was spent in Ireland. In 1848, Lord Clarendon was brought into the Dublin Police Court by the infamous Buchanan, because the Viceroy hesitated in laying down the filthy lucre which had been promised him for betraying champions of the Irish Party at that time. He was surprised to hear an accusation of trifling with the time of the Committee. There might have been some trifling during the present Parliament; but it certainly had not come from the third Party, and when the trifling was carried on by very influential persons the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) did not rise and protest against it. The hon. Member would find that it was not a wise course to impeach the motives of hon. Members of that House. In fact, if he had had the experience of the last Parliament, he would have seen that it was a very dangerous course, and that a speech of that character constituted in itself a justification which otherwise might be wanting. He therefore trusted that if they expressed themselves strongly their motives would not be impeached.
  Mr. SHAWsaid, an excuse had been made for the Government that they had not been long enough in power to make arrangements for blotting this Vote out of the Estimates. If any Member of the Government would get up and pledge himself that it should not appear this year, and that they regarded such a Vote as discreditable, and intended to carry on the Business of the country above board, so that the whole world might

  693
  see what they were doing, he would not be for further dividing the Committee. He was quite certain that, no matter where the money was spent, the country got no value for it. He thought very little of it was spent in Ireland. However, the country ought not to meddle with any business that required bribing and working in the dark.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, the Government came into power to carry out the motto of Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform; and whilst he had no charge to make against any of the Members of the Government, he thought some of them looked as though they were ashamed of this Vote. He was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) say that which he did not know to be true—namely, that some of this money was spent in Ireland for the purpose of keeping order. The Government had not given them the information which they were entitled to have, and he thought that any man who knew the world would not approve of the employment of Secret Service money either in great or small matters. The head of a large business establishment spent no secret service money; and he was sure no Member of the Government, in his private capacity, would allow his steward or his servant to do so. As the Government did not toll them how much of the money was spent in Ireland, they were entitled to think there was something to hide. They had long memories in Ireland. They could remember cases in which Secret Service money had been expended, and the name of Sadleir might be added to those already mentioned. Therefore, as they knew the money had been badly spent in past times, they were entitled now to ask for an explanation.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he might be permitted to summarize the arguments that had been urged in favour of this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) had dwelt upon the necessity of preserving law and order. That was an old phrase; but he (Mr. Biggar) thought that if proper interest was shown in the welfare of the people law and order would then follow; and that, in his opinion, was the proper direction which their reforms should take. Another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman was that no evidence existed that
  694
  any part of the Secret Service money was spent in Ireland. Of course not; it was no easy matter to obtain evidence with regard to the Secret Service money, for the very reason that it was secret in its application, and that was why the public did not know how it was spent. It had been stated on a former occasion in evidence that this Vote was divided between the Home Office, the Foreign Office, and the Department under the control of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in certain proportions; and that, he thought, fully justified the Members who really represented the people of Ireland?—not the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), who only represented the Whiggery of a certain section of the people—in asking for information as to the manner in which this Fund had been applied. Again, it had been stated that, in the event of a conspiracy existing in Ireland, the largest share of the Secret Service Vote would be expended in communication between the Treasury and the Home Office, in order to ascertain whether the latter could spare any portion of the money assigned to them. That he considered to be a corroboration of the contention of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), who argued that this money was used for the basest purposes, such as that of entrapping people to commit themselves by the utterance of rash words, which were afterwards distorted for the purposes of getting them committed to prison. He did not think it right that the Government should use means of that sort for carrying out their policy; and the Committee ought, in his opinion, to say that they would not allow the present Government to lend itself to the courses which had been followed by their Predecessors, by refusing to pass the Vote.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was evidence to show that the Government had always in hand Secret Service money sufficient for its business during six months. It being the case, therefore, that, as the Prime Minister had told them a short time since, the amount used had been very much reduced, it could not be necessary to take the Vote at all, for the amount in the hands of the Treasury at that moment must be very considerable. Again, they had effected annual savings for some time past; for which credit had been given in

  695
  the Estimate, and which, represented the accumulated sum of £19,000. There could be no time so convenient for putting an end to this Vote as the opportunity which was presented by a change of Government; because, when the outgoing Ministers left their Departments and surrendered them to their successors, they had to make up their accounts, which would show the balance of the Secret Service money in hand. The present Government had a good opportunity, for that reason, for affording the information which he had asked for—namely, what amount of money belonging to the Fund in question was in the hands of the Secretary to the Treasury, and what proportion of the sum now asked to be granted was to be allotted to each of the Public Departments? Because, so far from the whole of this money being devoted to services abroad, it had been elicited by one of the Members of the Public Accounts Committee that it might naturally happen, in view of certain contingencies in Ireland, that the share of the Fund in the hands of the Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary might be drawn upon by arrangement between them and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Treasury appeared to have been very unwilling to acknowledge any responsibility with regard to the allocation of this Fund; but the Treasury witnesses had admitted that it was distributed in something like equal proportions between the Departments he had named. Now, this transfer of a portion of the grant belonging to any particular Department to the Chief Secretary for Ireland was by no means a proper proceeding. He was inclined to think that one-fourth of the money went to the Foreign Secretary, and that it was afterwards transferred by private arrangement into the hands of those who administered affairs in Ireland. It was due to the people of Ireland that they should know by what means the Government transfers were effected; and it would certainly be of interest to the constituency which he represented to know from what fund those persons were paid who had followed him and his friends about King's County, jotting down every word they could hear which fell from their mouths. That system had obtained in Ireland for some time past, and was of such a character as would exasperate any proper-minded
  696
  people; and an English friend of his who had been with him in Ireland some time ago had said—"I must admit that you Irishmen are treated like a parcel of slaves, and in England we would not stand it." He would ask the Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of the sum now asked for was to be devoted to purposes of the kind he had alluded to in Ireland?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had already stated that he could not give the information asked for. It was quite true that the Committee of Public Accounts inquired into this subject about 10 years ago, when it was found that an accumulation of the Fund had taken place; but that was at a time when the rule was not in force for the surrender of the surplus of the previous year. Since that time, however, the Vote had been placed in the same position as the others, and any surplus that arose upon it from year to year was surrendered to the Exchequer, so that there was at that time no accumulated balance.
  MR. BARRYsaid, he thought that new Members like himself would derive from the discussion which had taken place a useful lesson in political consistency, and would learn the difference between the Liberal policy both in and out of Office. In the rugged school of Northumbrian Liberalism, in which he had been brought up, the conduct of the Government would have been described as of a very pinchbeck character. He ventured to suggest that, if the Government would accede to the very reasonable request made by his hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) for information as to the proportion of this Fund which had been spent in Ireland it would save further discussion, and that if they had done so at an earlier period much valuable time would have been saved.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he wished also to express his disappointment at the course which the Leaders of the Liberal Party had taken on that occasion. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), had recommended the Committee to have some confidence in the Government of their choice; but he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) would remind the hon. Gentleman that that great Liberal, Mr. Fox, had declared a wholesome distrust of all Governments to be the characteristics of true Liberalism.

  697
  He was surprised that no assurance had been given that the sympathies of the present Government were not with the form of expenditure in question, and that it should not be carried on beyond the present Session. He was quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland despised this expenditure, and he could not doubt his complete contempt for the whole system on which it rested. He did not believe that any good was ever done to a State by the expenditure of Secret Service money, which was under the management of subordinates, and which was expended in making little armies of informers and spies, and turning away from the Government whole classes of the people who would otherwise support them. The system of shifting portions of the Fund from one Department to another, as indicated by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), seemed like the virement system of the Second French Empire, when public money was allowed to be diverted to all sorts of purposes, quite different from those for which it had been voted by the Assembly. He urged the Government to get rid, once for all, of the whole system, and thereby secure more fully the confidence of the people; and he trusted that an assurance would be given that if the Vote were passed that evening they should hear under the auspices of the present Government no more of the Secret Service money.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, he had objected to this Vote when the matter came before the Committee last Session. He believed that the greater portion of the money had been expended in Ireland by the late Government for political purposes.
  MR. WEBSTERsaid, both he, and, as he believed, many other new Members of the House, were anxious for some declaration on the part of the Government with respect to this Vote. While they were very anxious for economy, they had also perfect confidence in the present Government, and they felt that allowance should be made for the difficult position in which they were placed, by having to deal with the affairs of the country so suddenly. It would be satisfactory to them to be assured upon the faith of the Government that they regarded the Vote asked for as really
  698
  necessary for the Public Service, and that during the Recess it should be re-considered, and if necessary revised, so that next Session they might be prepared to state, more fully than they could then do, what were their views as to the necessity of the continuance of the Vote in question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, if his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Webster) had been present during the earlier part of the debate, he would have heard from him a declaration very much in accordance with the view which he had just stated. He felt that if there were an onus, or anything disagreeable, attaching to the Vote for Secret Service money, it was very hard that it should all accumulate upon the head of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. More of the brunt of that matter came upon the Irish Government than was its due. He was asked to give an assurance that before another Session arrived they would do away with that Vote. It was impossible for the Government to make that declaration. They could not know what would be the condition of affairs in Ireland, Scotland, or in England next year. All he could say was that he heard with surprise, he might say with horror, some of the different uses to which hon. Members appeared to think that part of the money for which he was responsible might be applied. He could hardly suppose that hon. Members really thought that it could be used in the employment of persons to go into a Catholic church, desecrating every feeling of religion, for the purpose of persuading people to the commission of crime. He did not know why the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) had supposed that the late Government spent any portion of the money for electioneering purposes in Ireland and several other uses of that kind, and it was quite impossible that the present Government could be supposed to be likely to do so. He would add that he did not believe it would be safe for the Government to bind itself to do away with the Vote, He considered that a great responsibility rested upon the Government, which personally he felt very strongly; and he hoped he should be able to keep to his determination that, as far as he was concerned, the money should never be used in a manner which his conscience disapproved. He

  699
  should be glad if next year at this time the state of Ireland should be such that he, on behalf of the Irish Government, might have it in his power to say they could do without the Vote altogether. He asked those hon. Members who had taken part in that discussion to do all they could in Ireland—and their influence was great—to prevent any danger to law and order, and then if the Government could do without the money they would be thankful to dispense with it. He could not say, however, that that result would occur, and it would be a very foolish thing for the Government to give an absolute pledge on the subject. They were sensible that the application of a fund of this kind might very easily be abused, and if they were not fully aware of that they ought to be. He could promise that, as far as he knew, it would be used under the very strictest sense of responsibility.
  Mr. T. P. O'CONNORhoped that, after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it would not be thought necessary to proceed to a division. What was chiefly necessary was that the right hon. Gentleman should clearly understand the charge that was made, not against him personally, but against the Irish Administration. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether any hon. Members of the Committee could suppose that he would be guilty of sending an informer into a Roman Catholic place of worship, to there desecrate the Sacraments, in order to get up charges against Irish people No one suspected the right hon. Gentleman; but it could not be said that other persons had not been suspected, and with good cause. The persons suspected were subordinate officials, who had done things which had not come under the Chief Secretary's notice. It was the system against which they were fighting, and not against particular individuals, especially against the present holder of the Chief Secretarial Office. The right hon. Gentleman had also appealed to the Members for Irish constituencies to assist him in keeping the Irish people in order, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that such appeal would not be made in vain to men who were fully conscious of the responsibility placed upon them. But, at the same time, he might be permitted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for the
  700
  peace of the country rested principally upon the Government of the day, and that, therefore, it was unfair to make an attempt to shift the responsibility to the Irish Members of Parliament. It was in the power of the Government to bring in measures which would have the effect of restoring the Irish people to a condition of prosperity, and so to keep them in a state of perfect tranquillity.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it had been his intention, following the precedent set in the last Parliament, to take two divisions against that Vote; but as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made a statement which appeared to be generally satisfactory to the Committee, he could only say that he would not further take up the time of the Committee by discussion or divisions. If the right hon. Gentleman had only favoured the Committee with the statement he had now made three hours earlier, that space of time would have been saved. On the whole, it seemed to be as difficult to abolish Secret Service money as to do away with flogging in the Army.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding£4, 856, 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 clay of March 1881, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary He venue."
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he could not let the Vote pass without putting in his usual protest against the grant for Queen's Plates. He had always entertained a hope that as soon as a Liberal Government came into power they would abolish this grant. Perhaps they had not been sufficiently long in power to cut off the grant in the present year and he would not now press the point further; but if it was proposed next year, he should certainly move the omission of the Vote, which could not, in his view, have the effect either of elevating the moral tone of the people or of improving the breed of horses. He did not object to people running horses; but he contended that if they wanted sport they ought to pay for it themselves. [Cries of

  701
  "Move!"] He had not, as already stated, intended to oppose the Vote on the present occasion; but as it seemed to be wished, he would move to reduce the Vote by £218, the sum set down for Queen's Plates in Scotland.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £218, for the Queen's Plates and Plate for the Royal Company of Archers, he omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Sir Andrew Lush.)
  MR. RAMSAY,in supporting the Amendment, contended that the money granted did no possible good either in improving the breed of horses, or in any other way. Races were too often scenes of riot and dissipation, which it was not desirable to encourage either in Scotland or elsewhere.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had the greatest faith in the good intentions of the Scotch Members of the House; but he was struck with the amusing nature of their opposition to this Vote. Some five Sessions back they succeeded in getting the Vote struck out of the Estimates, and, in consequence, it was not included in the following Session. Then the Scotch Members expressed great dissatisfaction, and succeeded not only in having the Vote restored, but actually obtained payment of the Vote which had, at their own instance, been struck out in the previous Session. It was to be hoped that that solemn farce was not to be acted in each Session. He was willing to vote with the Scotch Members, if they were prepared to pursue a consistent course, and not again put themselves into a ridiculous position.
  MR. D. M'LARENsaid, the facts had not been stated with perfect accuracy by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). The Vote was struck out without a division, but was restored at the instance of certain interested persons who went behind the backs of the Scotch Members to the Treasury, and talked the officials over to their way of thinking. He denied that Scotch Members as a body had any hand in the restoration of the Vote, or the payment of the amount which had been struck out of the Estimate the year before. He felt sure a large majority of the Scotch Members and the Scotch people would oppose the Vote on its merits; but, as far as he was concerned, he was perfectly
  702
  sick of hearing this question discussed year after year in the House.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he thought the question should be decided by the wishes of the Scotch Members. The Irish Members were very strongly in favour of Queen's Plates in Ireland; and, therefore, in his opinion, the Scotch Members were equally entitled to them, if they chose to have them; the same advantages ought to be extended to Scotland as were extended to Ireland. He hoped they would be allowed to proceed at once to a division.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he should protest against the money being given up, whilst much larger sums were received from the Imperial Treasury for this purpose in England and Ireland. He should, therefore, support the Vote.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he objected to the Scotch Members ruling in that House, and to the public money being given away in a manner which they thought proper. He desired to know what meaning was attached to the words used by them "entitled to Plates?" The English Members received no money for such a purpose from the Votes. He entirely objected to the application of the money of the people to racing purposes in the neighbourhood of such places as Prestonpans and Musselburgh, where none but old screws ran, that were not worth the trouble of going to see. This system of taking the money out of the public purse was a very bad example, and ought not to be supported for a moment by hon. Gentlemen in the House of Commons. If the Scotch and Irish people wanted sport, he was quite willing that they should have it as long as they paid for it themselves, and did not call upon his constituency for the money. He intended to divide the Committee upon his Motion.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that although he had voted the other day against adjourning for the Derby, he had thought he might as well go down to Epsom and see what it was like. He was free to confess that if it were merely confined to the racing he should have considered the proceedings only exceedingly silly, but not absolutely obnoxious. But he was convinced that the Derby, in particular, was a sort of saturnalia in gambling, which was incident to all classes in the Kingdom, and which vice it, in common with other horse races,

  703
  tended to encourage, particularly in the lower ranks of society, where its baneful influence was more marked than in any other. It was well known how widely this vice of gambling upon horse races had spread throughout the British Empire. He knew that the telegraph-wires between this country and India carried racing news, and gave rise to an enormous amount of gambling in the latter country. Lotteries had been prohibited by law; but, notwithstanding that, under the guise of Derby sweepstakes they were continued, and enormous sums of money were taken from the public every year to support what he would call the unhallowed sport of race-gambling. He felt himself, for these reasons, bound to vote against giving Queen's Plates to Scotland, and to other portions of the Kingdom. It was a perfect farce to speak of them as an encouragement to the breed of horses; indeed, they had no other effect than deterioration in this respect; they served no useful purpose whatever, but, on the other hand, gave rise to and encouraged very harmful practices. He should certainly oppose the Vote.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, it was quite clear, from the course which the debate had taken, that the Irish Vote for the same purpose would be objected to as well as the Scotch Vote. The hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) had spoken a great deal of his constituency paying for the Irish and Scotch Plates; but he expected that a great many more people from Finsbury attended races than did people in Ireland and Scotland. It was not correct to say that the Irish and Scotch did not contribute to the amusement of the English people. The people of both those countries certainly did contribute in this respect, and the constituents of the hon. Baronet received good value for the money so paid. The hon. Baronet had said that he did not wish to pay for the races in Scotland and Ireland; but he remembered him also on one occasion to have said that the public money should be spent on a particular side of one of the parks, which was, of course, the side which belonged to his constituency. Under these circumstances, he thought it was rather selfish on the part of the hon. Member to say that his constituency would not pay for the Irish and Scotch Plates. A great deal of the public
  704
  money contributed by Ireland and Scotland was spent in the Metropolis. In the case of the British Museum, for instance, the sum of £100,000 was contributed in this way; and he was quite sure that the constituents of the hon. Baronet derived more advantage from that institution than the people who found the money. He thought that the races in Ireland ought to be protected, and that the policy of hon. Members should be to continue this payment to Scotland.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it would be in the recollection of some hon. Members that prosecutions frequently took place against betting men; and it was, therefore, obvious that encouragement ought not to be given by grants of public money for the purpose of horse racing. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) had very properly said that the breed of horses resulting from these races was worthless.
  MAJOR O'BEIRNEsaid, he should vote for the money being given for Queen's Plates in Scotland, although he disapproved of the manner in which it was given. He objected to the Vote being given in small sums. If it were made in large sums, much greater encouragement would be given.
  An hon. MEMBER said, he contended that this money was very properly applied for the benefit of a class of very poor people who had scarcely any other amusements than what they got from those races. They belonged to a class unfriended and unrepresented in the House of Commons, who, it was true, did not go to church for the reason that they were not sufficiently educated. He thought the Committee could not do better than vote the money to benefit this class of people.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEsaid, he observed that in this Vote, and in that portion affected by the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk), there was the sum of £20 designated as a prize to be shot for by the Royal Company of Archers, the Queen's Body Guard in Scotland, which was composed of 500 members, and included almost all the landed gentry of Scotland. The only money which they received from the country was this Vote of £20, to provide a prize to be shot for annually; and it was the fact that the man fortunate enough to gain the prize had to

  705
  make a large addition to the sum voted in order to show something which was worthy of Her Majesty. He himself had had the honour of gaining this prize. The money voted was a mere bagatelle to the members of the Queen's Body Guard; but it was esteemed, because it was a recognition by the county of a venerable Scottish institution. He therefore suggested that the sum in question should be separated from the proposed reduction of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and would move an Amendment to that effect.
  THE CHAIRMAN: You cannot do that now. If the Amendment is withdrawn that course can be taken.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he should have much pleasure in acceding to the request of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) by reducing the proposed reduction to the sum of £198.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the Item of £198, for the Queen's Plates, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Sir Andrew Lush.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 126: Majority 76.——(Div. List, No. 11.)
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought that he should now be in Order in drawing attention to the whole Vote. He knew that he could not formally move to omit any of the items; but he thought he should be justified in asking for some explanation with regard to them. The first item to which he wished to call attention was that of £500 a-year to the Lyon King at Arms. He supposed that was some gentleman connected with heraldry, or something of that sort; but he was rather inclined to think that people who wished to have a coat of arms could bear the expense out of their own pockets, and that a Vote of public money should not be required for that purpose. Then with regard to the item for the Bible Board. Now, the Scotch were said to be a very religious people, and he supposed they were; but he could not help thinking that this Bible Board was rather a job. It was a swindle, in point of fact. The best explanation of its functions which had been given to him was, that it was for the purpose of
  706
  preparing the manuscript of the different editions of the Bible. If a writer on a newspaper were paid at the same rate as the officials on the Bible Board, he would earn something extraordinary in the way of salary, because it was impossible to produce more than a very few editions of the Bible which was published in Scotland.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it was not in Order to raise the question as a debate. He thought that the hon. Member was going to put a question.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that up to 1867 the office of the Lyon King at Arms was paid by fees; but in that year an Act was passed by which the fees were altered to a salary which was charged upon the Vote. With respect to the duties of the Bible Board, he understood that the Secretary was responsible for the accuracy of the Bibles published in Scotland.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrequested an explanation of the item of £97 a-year for Her Majesty's limner—that was, what the limner did for the money.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that as regarded the Secretary to the Bible Board, he should like to state that in Scotland there was free trade in the publication of Bibles; but they all had to pass the Board. There were very numerous publications of the Bible in Scotland; and it was not a monopoly as in England.
  MR. MACDONALDasked how long the item of £184 a-year for the histriographer was to continue? It was another of those cases that should be dealt with at once by lopping off the charge. He noticed that that gentleman was in receipt of a compensation allowance of £466 13s. 4d. He understood, some years ago, that the office was only to continue for a time, while certain manuscripts were being manipulated by Mr. Hill-Burton, and that it was likely soon to terminate; but it appeared now that it was interminable.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated, that in 1830, on the recommendation of a Select Committee, these charges were transferred to the Civil Service.
  MR. D. M'LARENsaid, with regard to the compensation allowance, that it had only been in existence for two years, and was just in the same position as any other compensation given to any officer in England or Scotland.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSdeclared that there was no monopoly of printing the Bible in England.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was not in Order in discussing the general merits of an item previous to one upon which the Committee had come to a decision.
  Original Question put. and agreed to.
  (14.) £9,734, to complete the sum for the Fishery Board, Scotland.
  DR. LYONSsaid, that the Fishery interests of Ireland were just now in a very languishing condition, and he wished to point out some of the causes. There was one circumstance of great practical importance connected with the Fisheries on the West Coast of Scotland, and that was the maintenance of a Government cutter. There were now two Government boats on the coast; the Bittern and the Jackal. It was a matter of public notoriety that very efficient services had been rendered by the commander of the latter vessel and the crew under his command. It was not very easy to define exactly what their functions were; but he (Dr. Lyons) believed they exercised a sort of watchful care over the great fishing interests of the West Coast of Scotland. They were of great use in giving information to the men engaged in fishing, and in regulating and controlling a good many of the local disputes, which of necessity arose when a large number of independent persons were engaged in prosecuting one enterprize. They informed the fishermen as to the best periods of sailing, the state of the fishing grounds at sea, and they gave generally very efficient help to the fishing population. As he had said, the fishing interests of Ireland were in a very languishing condition; and he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would find any more important duty to undertake than that of fostering and encouraging the great fishing industry of Ireland. He did not wish to oppose the Vote, unless it were necessary to put himself in Order by concluding with a Motion. It was a Vote that entirely met with his approval; and he could only hope that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would consider the possibility of instituting some similar service in Ireland, where he be-
  708
  lieved it would do most excellent work and would give a great stimulus to the coast fishing. It would be of great advantage to have one of Her Majesty's ships on the dangerous coasts of the West of Ireland, which at present were left unprotected. He was sure that hon. Members who represented counties bordering on the West Coast of Ireland would support what he said.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought the remarks of the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) would be much fortified if he had referred, to the sum which was granted to Ireland on the same account. The sum for Scotland was £13,000, while for Ireland it was only £2,853. The Scotch Vote included encouragement of Fisheries, and repairs of piers along the coast, all of which were advantages which Ireland did not possess. Now, what did the Fishery Board of Ireland consist of? It consisted of an Inspector, a clerk, a messenger, and a housekeeper. It would really appear that the important matter of Irish Fisheries was wholly conducted in an office in Dublin which had nothing to do with the deep sea at all. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be able to tell them that lie had some measure in hand to deal with this subject.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that hon. Members seemed to him to be very sanguine as to the results of the new Government in Ireland; but he would venture to say that if the Irish Fisheries were to be developed they would be done much more by the efforts of the people themselves than by Government assistance. There was one remark, however, which he wished to make. They, on that side, had come there as rigid professors of economy; but he confessed that his hopes would vanish if, every time that one of the three countries in the United Kingdom obtained a larger sum than the rest, the hon. Members who represented the others were to insist upon having an equally large sum. With regard to all of those questions, what they had to consider, first of all was, was the money really wanted, and not whether another part of the Kingdom obtained it. With regard to the sum for Scotland, a great part of it was in the nature of a loan from the Exchequer; and if hon. Members would refer to the Estimates they would find

  709
  that nearly half was repaid to the Exchequer in another form.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he ventured to support the statement of the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) with regard to the Irish Fisheries, and especially with respect to the advantage which the provision of vessels like those in Scotland would be in Ireland. In Bantry Bay, particularly, there had been a great deal of ill-feeling between the trawlers and other fishermen, and it had recently resulted in a fight in which life was nearly lost. If there had been any authority to settle the dispute between the two classes of fishermen that would not have occurred. Besides that, he must take exception to the statements of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury—namely, that the Fisheries only required the energy and industry of the people to develop. That was not the case. In the first place, there were no piers on that part of the Irish Coast. There was hardly a pier on the Coast of Cork for a distance of 80 or 90 miles. He was himself, during the last few days, in a tract of country extending over 30 miles of coast where there was not a single pier. He, therefore, hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would consider that subject; and he might say that there was no surer way to relieve the distress on the West Coast of Ireland than, first, by making a grant in aid of the construction of piers, and then by placing a certain sum of money at the disposal of the Board of Works to lend to the fishermen.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, that none would more willingly assist the Irish Members in regard to the Fisheries than himself; but they must remember that the subject before them was the Scotch Fishery, and as the Scotch Fishery they must deal with it. He wished to call attention to a matter he had referred to on a former occasion. The Secretary of the Board received an additional £800 a-year as Curator to the National Gallery of Scotland. Now, it appeared to him that there was no office but had barnacles and parasites of that kind, acting in and holding two offices and drawing two salaries. He should like to know whether there was any person in the City of London who would have, in his office, a person who drew his pay, and then went away to fill another office
  710
  in another part of the City? and yet that was what was done in every office connected with the Government. There was also pay and duty pay, all or both cunningly devised to fleece the taxpayer, and make him feel happy in being robbed. He had a thought to divide the Committee on the subject, because there were by far too many persons who, by favour or some other reason, were able to get two situations; while others were not able to get even one. He should certainly set his face strongly against it, with the view of getting not only the House, but the country to deal with the matter.
  MR. D. M'LARENsaid, there seemed to be an impression that Scotland was very lavishly dealt with. He wished to point out that, so far as regarded the Fishery grants, Scotland got nothing at all. The fees which came in for branding amounted to £400 more than the expenses, so that Scotland made the Exchequer a present of about that amount. With regard to the employment of Government vessels, it was found that when a large number of boats were gathered to one fishing ground a great amount of confusion ensued, and it was necessary to have two small vessels to keep peace among them. They were the police of the sea, and the cost of maintaining them could in no sense be held to be a grant to the Scotch Fisheries.
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEagreed with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) as to the undesirability of one person holding two offices, but pointed out the exceptional nature of the position of the Secretary to the Fishery Board. That gentleman was also Curator of the National Gallery of Scotland. That was a situation which occupied a large amount of his time, and he know from his personal knowledge that that gentleman exercised a great deal of care in the performance of his duties. It would, in his opinion, be very wrong to cut down the Vote on account of his holding two offices.
  An hon. MEMBER said, that the last time he was on the West Coast of Ireland shoals of herrings appeared off the coast, and on asking the peasantry why they did not go out to catch them, they said that it was because they had neither boats nor nets. Now, coming as he did from the East Coast of England, where the same thing occurred, he wished to

  711
  point out that the people of Yarmouth and Lowestoff never came to the Government to ask to be supplied with fishing material. He could not help thinking that the people on the West Coast of Ireland would do well to imitate their example.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) was absent from the Committee, as he would probably have proposed a reduction of the Vote, on the ground that the grant did nothing whatever to help the people to whom it was made. He came from the extreme West Coast of England, which was celebrated, amongst other things, for the catching of fish. The Cornish fishermen not only fished off the coast of Cornwall, but also in Irish waters, as well as off the Coast of Scotland, where they competed with the Scotch fishermen, and he defied his hon. Friend to find one single Vote directly or indirectly in their aid. His hon. Friend had said that the Vote for Harbours and Piers was in favour of the Cornish fishermen. But they had no such Vote, for the harbours on the Coast of Cornwall were built by associations of Cornish men, who advanced their own money for the purpose. He disputed the value of the Vote as being in any way of use to the Scotch Fisheries.
  MR. MARE STEWARTsaid, that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had informed the Committee that he came from the West Coast of England; but he had not, at the same time, informed them of the great difference which existed between the West Coast of England and some parts of the Scotch Coast. There existed among the fishermen of different nationalities a natural jealousy and rivalry, and it was for that reason absolutely necessary that Her Majesty's cutters should go there to preserve order, and to that purpose a considerable portion of the present Vote was due, which, in his opinion, could certainly not be considered to be misappropriated. He thought that before his hon. Friend complained of the proposal in aid of Scotch fishermen he should make himself master of the situation. If he would look at the Vote he would see that it was in respect of one of the most dangerous parts of the Coast of Scotland that the money was asked for.
  Mr. E. COLLINSsaid, he could not allow some of the observations which had been addressed to the Committee to pass without reply from him. His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had referred to the important fisheries in Cornwall, which, as he said, although they were not supported by State aid, were both extensive and flourishing. But there were important Fisheries in Ireland which had been developed by Irish industry as well as by Irish intelligence and money. For instance, the mackerel fishery at Kinsale had obtained a prominence which caused it to be regarded as one of the most important industries in the country; but the reason why the Fisheries of Kinsale had obtained that importance within the last 10 years was that facilities existed there in the way of shelter for the boats, that did not exist in other parts of the country. He believed that if provision were made for harbours and piers on various parts of the coast, which stood very much in need of them, the same amount of industry would be stimulated there as had been said to exist among the Cornish fishermen. Under these circumstances, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the hope that he would take some step in the direction of developing that particular industry.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he wished to point out that the question before the Committee related to the Scotch Fisheries, and that a certain amount of money was asked to be devoted to that purpose. He agreed that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had clearly shown that the Scotch Fisheries paid their own cost in this respect. The cutters referred to in the Estimates were actually the police of the sea, in those parts to which they were sent, where they also were employed for Revenue purposes; and it would be just as reasonable on the part of hon. Members to object to vote a sum required for the Coastguard as to object to the money required for these vessels.
  Mr. PARNELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was in the position of a man who had dined heartily at another person's expense, and who felt that he was entirely independent of any further assistance, and that he could face the evils of the world with confidence. But in Scotland and Ireland

  713
  the people had not the same advantage. The hon. Member for Liskeard had said that it was to the spirited independence and industry of the Cornish fishermen that their advantageous position was due. Now, if the hon. Member would go round the South Coast of England and count the number of piers and harbours that had been formed by State assistance, he would see the enormous disproportion which existed as regarded the condition of the South Coast of England and the Scotch Coast as compared with the West Coast of Ireland. The hon. Member must also bear in mind that the Cornish fishermen carried on their trade in, comparatively speaking, inland waters, where they had not to face the Atlantic rollers as did the Irish fishermen. Of course, they were not entitled to discuss the state of the Irish Fisheries upon a Scotch Vote; but if the hon. Member only knew what injustice he was doing to the Irish fishermen, he (Mr. Parnell) was sure that he would be one of the first to wish unsaid what he had uttered. It had been pointed out that his constituents were doing their best to develop the fishery on the West Coast of Ireland, where a number of boatowners were taking advantage of the only harbour which existed along that coast for affording shelter to the boats. It was exceedingly probable that a somewhat similar state of affairs existed with regard to Scotland. There was a saying in that House that the Scotch had been very much petted, and that their Members had always been able to get as much money as they required for their own purposes from the Imperial Exchequer. That might be so or not; but it was not likely that the people of Scotland had received the same amount of assistance for their fisheries as had been received by the people of England. If the Irish people had the control of their own resources over their land and water, and over their own county affairs, they would never come to this country for a single penny. They would be then able to do that which the Government now refused to do for them, and which they also refused to allow them to do for themselves. He thought it unfair for the hon. Member for Liskeard, as one who had opposed a centralized system of industries which had crushed trade in Ireland, and had materially injured Scotland, to draw comparisons of this kind, and to exhibit
  714
  the fishermen of Ireland and Scotland in so disadvantageous a light.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it would be of advantage to the Committee if the discussion of the Vote were confined to its object—namely, the sum in aid of the Scotch Fisheries. His reason for hoping they would be allowed to discuss the Vote upon its real merits was, that he did not wish to prejudice, prejudge, or anticipate the discussion which must come on when the Vote in aid of the Irish Fisheries was reached. His hon. Friend had said that a Supplementary Vote would be required in the course of a year for that purpose; and in order that it should be made use of as speedily as possible, it would be his duty to introduce a clause into the Bill which was about to be brought forward. He could not, therefore, help feeling that a discussion of the kind which was taking place with regard to the Irish Fisheries, without having the actual Vote before them, was more likely to do harm than good to the passing of the Bill.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had imputed to him opinions which he did not hold, and had charged him with leaving out of sight two facts—first, that Cornish fishermen were not exposed to the Atlantic rollers; and, secondly, that they were possessed of harbours or piers constructed with public money. With regard to the first statement, he should like to see the hon. Member in a mackerel boat off the Land's End.
  MR. CALLANrose to Order. A few moments ago the hon. Member for Kin-sale (Mr. Collins) had been called to Order for discussing Irish Fisheries upon this Vote; he begged to ask whether the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was in Order in discussing Atlantic rollers breaking on the shores of Cornwall?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had already drawn attention to the fact that the discussion had travelled considerably beyond the Vote before the Committee, to which he requested hon. Members to confine themselves.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had endeavoured to prove that the Vote for the Scotch Fisheries was totally unnecessary, on the ground that the English Fisheries flourished without any similar assistance. There was no single harbour in Cornwall constructed with public

  715
  money; while the harbour of Plymouth was constructed for the use of Her Majesty's Navy.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, what he had stated was, that a large number of harbours on the South Coast of England had been constructed with public money. He had not said that there were any harbours in Cornwall constructed in the same way; but it was obvious that a fisherman who put out from a bad harbour, knowing that he had a good one to run into, was in a different position to the fisherman on the Scotch Coast, who knew that he had no such harbour to make use of.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he wished to pin the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) to the last words he had made use of—namely, "petted Cornwall."
  MR. WILLIAMSONregretted that so much time had been wasted by Irish and English Members who did not appear to understand the question of Scotch Fisheries. The sum in question was for expenses connected with the branding of herrings, the catching of which was the principal element in the Scotch Fisheries. On the other band, the Fisheries of Cornwall were almost confined to the catching of pilchards. If the expenses connected with the Revenue cutters were taken into account, hon. Members would see that, practically, the Scotch Fisheries had no assistance from the English Treasury.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he did not think that any Scotch Member had sufficiently repudiated the idea that the Scotch people wanted, or would accept, any fostering or coddling from the British Treasury. It had been clearly shown that the branding of the herrings did not cost the country a single farthing. He was sure that the South Coast of Cornwall as well as the South and East Coast of England were protected by Her Majesty's ships just as much as any part of the Scotch Coast. It was, therefore, not a special advantage given to Scotland in this respect. The sum of £3,000 referred to had been for many years expended on two harbours of refuge—namely, Wick and Anstruther, and were for the purpose of saving life, and, consequently, strictly analogous to the harbours of Holyhead, Devonport, and Plymouth.
  MR. SEXTONremarked, that the difference in the treatment of Ireland and
  716
  Scotland in this matter was not exceptional; but it was a type of what had invariably happened since this Assembly first took upon itself the paternal care of the affairs of Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's remarks have no connection with the object of the Vote. The Question before the Committee is—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,734, 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 Fishery Board, Scotland."
  The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. SEXTONasked if he would be in Order in concluding his remarks in regard to the Scotch Fisheries?
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman has any remark to make upon the subject-matter of this Vote the Committee will be glad to hear him.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the Scotch Fisheries had received, since the Union, from Imperial grants a sum that was £1,250,000 in excess of the sum received by the Irish Fisheries. It appeared from the Reports of the hon. Member who now represented the County of Waterford (Mr. Blake), and who was formerly Inspector of Irish Fisheries. But the Inspectors had, again and again, appealed in vain to the Government to save the Irish Fisheries from decay—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in discussing the Irish Fisheries on a Scotch Vote. I must again remind him that the Question before the Committee is—
  "That a sum, not exceeding £9,734,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 Fishery Board, Scotland."
  Vote agreed to.
  (15.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £4,391, 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 Board of Lunacy in Scotland."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to point out to the Committee that they

  717
  were under a considerable disadvantage in discussing these Estimates from the fact that the Committee of Public Accounts had not reported upon the accounts that year. Generally, by that period of the Session, the 1st Report of the Public Accounts Committee, at any rate, was in the hands of hon. Members; but this year, in consequence, he presumed, of the Dissolution, the only Report which had been furnished to hon. Members by the Public Accounts Committee was one which stated in lump sums the amounts which were intended to be included in the Estimates. The Committee had no other Report before them whatever, and the consequence was that they were not able to estimate in any way the reasonableness of the demands now made upon them, and were really left very much in doubt as to the proper course they ought to take. Under these circumstances, he would move that the Chairman report Progress and ask leave to sit again, in order that the Committee, before continuing the consideration of the Estimates, might be furnished with a further Report from the Public Accounts Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHquite agreed with the hon. Member that it would be more convenient if the Report of the Public Accounts Committee were presented before Supply was taken; but if the hon. Member proposed that no more Votes in Supply should be taken until the Committee on Public Accounts had reported, the Committee must be prepared to wait until the end of the year. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion to report Progress. He (Lord Frederick Cavendish) intended to move to report Progress himself before long; but it would be much more convenient to the Committee if, before doing so, they were able to finish the Scotch Votes.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, if the Committee was to understand that the Government did not propose to take anything beyond the Scotch Votes in Class II. that night?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that was so.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORintimated that in that case he would not press the Motion for reporting Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (16.) £4,694, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not see in connection with this Vote any item for the expenses of the Census in Scotland. He thought the Vote ought to include that item. It would be most undesirable to have Supplementary Votes brought in hereafter for expenses which could be as well foreseen now as at any other time, and which, in his opinion, ought to be included in the Vote. He wished also to be informed when it was probable that the Census Bill would be introduced?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexplained, that no provision was made in the present Vote for the expenses of taking the Census, because, in the opinion of the Registrar General for Scotland, no portion of the expenditure would be necessary in the present year. The expense of the Census would be included in the Estimates for the year 1881. He believed that the Census Bills were being prepared as quickly as possible.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £14,048, 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 Board of Supervision for Belief of the Poor and for Expenses under the Public Health and Vaccination Acts, including certain Grants in Aid of Local Taxation in Scotland."
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, the attention of the Committee last evening was directed to this Vote; and it was then suggested that full information would be given in reference to it at a later stage, when the Estimate came regularly before the Committee. The sum which had been paid for many years for medical relief in Scotland was £10,000 per annum; and the Scotch Representatives had complained on more than one occasion that that sum was quite inadequate compared with the sums voted for similar purposes in England. The mode in which he

  719
  understood that the grant was allocated in England was that the Local Government Board, having control over the whole Administration, should pay one half of the expenses or salaries of every medical officer appointed; but the sole control was continued as to the number of officers to be appointed in connection with the several Unions. The Local Government Board also retained the power of approving of each medical officer appointed, and of preventing his dismissal without their consent. The same course was not followed in Scotland. The system in Scotland was that this sum of £10,000 was distributed among the several parishes in Scotland by the Board of Supervision, much in the same way as the sums were allocated in this country, but not in the same proportion. The sums received by the parishes in Scotland were very small indeed compared with the sums voted to the Boards of Guardians in England. No doubt, the circumstances of Scotland were dissimilar from those of England, and it would be impossible to apply the same practice to both countries. Many of the parishes in Scotland exceeded in area the great majority of the Unions in England. In England there were 15,000 parishes, although the population of the country was only six or seven times as large as that of Scotland. There were only about 900 parishes altogether in Scotland. Many of the Scotch parishes exceeded the area of the majority of Unions in England; and to apply the same rule to every single parish as was applied to the English Unions would lead to an amount of centralization of power in the Board of Supervision that the people of Scotland would dislike very much, and which, he thought, would be highly inexpedient, unless it was desired by this Government to centralize the whole working of the Poor Law system and deprive the people of Scotland of everything they now enjoyed in the shape of local self-government. Even if this should be the will of Parliament, he should be sorry to see local self-government wholly superseded by the central Government. Yet it was now sought that this grant should be dependent upon the acceptance by Scotland of some regulations which might be suitable in England, but which were certainly not suitable to the circum-
  720
  stances of Scotland. Seeing that the money granted was not given to any parish that did not conform to the regulations laid down by the Board of Supervision, and that no parish would get a share of the £10,000 which did not comply with them, it appeared to him that it would be quite sufficient, to secure the Treasury against imposition, or against the wrong and improper application of any part of the grant, that they should lay down definite rules for the distribution of the money, and that those rules should be adhered to. If a parish declined to adhere to the regulations, then it should be required to withdraw the grant in the same way that a withdrawal was now made from a school board in consequence of non-compliance with the regulations of the Department. In that case, wherever there was a failure to comply with the regulations, the grant would be at once withdrawn. He thought the Scotch Members were entitled to expect that the noble Lord below him the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish), or some one of Her Majesty's Ministers, would be prepared to state that if not on the present occasion, at any rate on an early day, the claims of Scotland to a further grant in aid of the local taxation for the relief of the poor should be conceded to them. He did not consider it necessary that he should detain the Committee with many remarks; he did not approve of these grants himself, and he should be quite content to see them do away altogether with all grants in aid of any local purposes whatever; because he believed that local supervision was much superior to centralization, and that it would be far better for the Scotch Members to secure local administration and independence from central control than to have State aid and centralized administration. He was satisfied that the evils would be far less than the evils which would arise from an attempt to centralize the local government of the country in the hands of any State Department. He, therefore, trusted that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or some other Member of Her Majesty's Government, would be able to give the Committee an assurance that the claims of Scotland to which he had referred, or the propriety of doing away with

  721
  these grants altogether, would he taken into serious consideration before the Committee was again asked to vote this particular sum. He had nothing whatever to say against the administration of the Board of Supervision. The people of Scotland were satisfied with their administration. They carried out the law in a judicious manner; but there was a natural desire on the part of all officials in every Department to increase the power and influence of the Department, and to deprecate anything in the nature of local self-government, no matter how much better the welfare of a particular district would be secured by the administration of persons who were better able to judge of the wants and necessities of a locality than any set of officials.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, he did not propose to follow the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), who had just addressed the Committee, in the statements he had made. He did not think there was any advantage to be obtained in going again over all the arguments in favour of increasing the medical grant and of local self-government, because they had already been repeated so often; but if he might make, a suggestion to his noble Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he would say this:—"Let us vote the proposed sum of £10,000 to-night towards the medical relief of Scotland, and leave the question of what is necessary to be done further for consideration hereafter in the Supplementary Estimates." It was agreed on all hands that the sum the Committee were asked to vote was wholly inadequate to meet the existing wants of Scotland, although Scotland was as much entitled to assistance in regard to medical relief as any other part of the country. What he would suggest was that they should take the Vote to-night as an instalment, and that the Government should bring in a Bill towards the end of the Session dealing with the whole question. He hoped the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give the Committee some assurance that the question would be dealt with in the way in which all the Scotch Members wished, and that in the Supplementary Estimates a further sum would be voted towards the medical relief of Scotland.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid that, so far as he understood the complaint of the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), it was that the Scotch people did not receive a fair share of the grant made by Parliament in aid of the local rates. The hon. Member wished either for an increased grant, or for an alteration of the system by getting rid of these grants altogether. Now, the question of local taxation both in England and Scotland was a very wide one, that would require careful and mature consideration. It was quite evident that it could not be dealt with in the present year. The only promise he was able to make at present was that, before the Estimates were brought forward next year, this subject should receive careful consideration with a view to placing it on a proper footing.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, the subject was one on which they had received that kind of satisfactory assurance so often that they were beginning to lose all faith in it. He thought the most practical way of dealing with the question would be to postpone the Vote until the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might have an opportunity of making himself acquainted with the real bearings of the case. He did not care two straws whether they did away with the system of grants in aid altogether, or whether they equalized them in different parts of the Kingdom; but he did protest against having a high grant in aid in England, while they received only one half, or even much less in proportion, in Scotland. This medical relief grant had, in point of fact, been held forth to the people of Scotland year after year as a bribe, in order to induce them to accept an unsatisfactory Poor Law Amendment Bill. Year after year Bills were introduced embodying this principle, which was nothing more than a bribe by which it was hoped to induce the House to accept the measure. He must say that he did not altogether agree with the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay). Last year he (Dr. Cameron) suggested to Her Majesty's Government that they might fairly meet the question by introducing a short measure offering to Scotland a grant in aid on equal terms with England, or rather on precisely the same terms accorded in England. The Government met that

  723
  proposition fairly, and introduced a Bill; but some hon. Members opposed it, and the consequence was that the measure fell through. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Falkirk Burghs had now expressed his views upon the matter. His hon. Friend objected to the principle of centralization, and to the central control which the Government proposition of last year involved. He (Dr. Cameron) had no doubt that if the Government would allow the people of Scotland to have what they were entitled to, they would be able to convince the Government that the money was applied in the most advantageous manner. Of course, that proposition could not be gone into that evening upon the present Vote; and he would, therefore, suggest that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should postpone the Vote.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHmust really ask his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to consider whether the proposal he made was at all a practicable way of dealing with the question. The suggestion now made, so far as he understood it, was that Scotland should be placed on the same footing as England; that they should receive an additional grant for medical relief, on the condition that all the appointments were approved by the Board of Supervision, due regard being had to the nature and extent of each district. Did his hon. Friend think that a large measure of that sort could receive due care and consideration at the hands of the Government in the short remaining period of the present Session? Another suggestion was made that the Government should put an end to the system of grants in aid altogether, He thought the Committee would see that it was impossible to deal with these questions in the present year; and, therefore, if he were to consent to postpone the Vote on the understanding that he hoped to be able to deal with the question, he would only be misleading the Committee. He thought that he had done all that he could be expected to do by promising that the subject should receive the fullest and most careful consideration before the Estimates were brought forward next year.
  MR. D. M'LARENcould not at present altogether accept the principle laid down that grants in aid of every kind should be done away with altogether. He
  724
  preferred, for the present discussion, the alternative that the grants should be equalized. What Scotland desired was equal justice with England. She asked for no kind of favour whatever. There were enormous discrepancies in the present system of administering these grants. He was not going to discuss the question in its entirety; but he simply wished to point out that the Committee would see in the Estimates for England grants in aid which amounted, on the whole, to £338,000, while Scotland received £10,000 only. Yet Scotland paid a seventh part of the Revenue paid by England. Why, then, should England, paying only seven times as much, get 33 times more than Scotland in the shape of grants in aid of its local taxes? Very fair promises had been made to the people of Scotland for several years past. About four years ago a large deputation waited upon the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who distinctly promised to consider the question, and to afford relief. He thought the time for repeating such promises had now passed, and the people of Scotland were entitled to expect at the hands of Her Majesty's Government something in the shape of a performance of promises.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas very much afraid that his hon. Friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) was only dragging a red flag in the path of the Committee in suggesting that grants in aid should be done away with altogether. The noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was right in saying that that was not a question within the range of practical politics at present; but he (Sir George Campbell) did not see that there could be any practical difficulty in carrying out now that which had been promised for many years—namely, the giving of grants to Scotland on the same scale as those which were given to England. Personally, he did not see why the administrative question should be mixed up with the financial question as had been the case. He agreed with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) that there was no reason why the Scotch Members should not insist upon having justice done to Scotland in regard to this question. He must say that he was much pained by the way in which Scotland was invariably treated, whichever Government happened to be in power.

  725
  The treatment of Scotland formed a painful contrast to the treatment of other parts of the Kingdom. When, the other night, the question was discussed, perhaps a little prematurely, there did appear to him to be a painful contrast. The Scotch Members not only failed to get a fair amount of hope or promise in the matter, but they hardly received a civil answer to their complaints. No Member of Her Majesty's Government seemed to know anything about the Scotch Vote, although this was a very important question, one in which intense interest existed in Scotland, and one which had been pressed on the House year after year. But when an hon. Member from Ireland, now sitting on the opposite side of the House, rose to raise a much less important question in regard to Ireland, and upon which less local feeling existed, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was profuse in promises. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly promised that the Irish grievance should be fully and amply considered in the present Session of Parliament and that if there was the injustice complained of it should be remedied. When that was the case, it did seem to him monstrous that the same amount of justice should not be done to Scotland in the present Session of Parliament. He could not help feeling that the people of Scotland were not fairly treated in the matter; and the treatment they met with certainly did suggest the necessity of having some Member of the Government in the House of Commons who should especially represent Scotland. He would not go the length of saying that the Representative of Scotland should be a Secretary of State; but he was strongly of opinion that there ought to be some Member of Her Majesty's Government who should make himself responsible for Scotch affairs, and should be capable of answering the complaints of the Scotch Members. He fully agreed with the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) that the Vote should be postponed; and he therefore begged leave to move that it be postponed, in order to afford Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of fully considering the subject.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot move that the Vote be postponed.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he would move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. He took that course from no spirit of opposition. He was perfectly certain that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not understand the question, or he would see that the Scotch Members were only raising a very fair claim, and that they were bound to make a firm stand in consequence of the hope deferred which had made their heart sick for many years. The noble Lord told them there was not time to pass a measure on the subject this Session. The whole of the matter was now before the Committee. The Bill he had already referred to was not introduced until a much later period of the Session last year; and although, owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding among the Scotch Members, it did not become law, it was certain if the matter was taken in hand now that a couple of weeks would suffice to dispose of it. At any rate, if that were not the case, and there should happen to be a disagreement among the Scotch Members as to the terms of the measure, the Government would then have the best excuse for doing nothing in the matter, and no one need be afraid that they would hesitate to avail themselves of that excuse. He thought that he might, without any lack of charity, say of the late Government that they were pleased to find that there was a disagreement among the Scotch Members, as it enabled them to keep the money in their pocket. For the purpose of giving to the Government an opportunity of re-considering the whole matter, he would move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, that his contention was that so long as these grants were given, it was only just that Scotland should be placed in the same position with regard to them as the other two divisions of the United Kingdom. He had no desire to protract the discussion, and if there were any prospect of the Government coming to a conclusion satisfactory to the Scotch Members he did not wish to press the matter. Other-

  727
  wise, he should feel it his duty to support the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that he thought Scotch Members were somewhat to blame for the position in which this matter now stood. A great deal had been said with regard to the grants in aid of medical relief in England. It was well known that the grants in aid of medical relief in England were given on certain conditions, which were that the local authorities should submit the medical appointments and salaries to the approval of the Local Government Board. The Scottish people had never agreed to that condition; but if they really wanted the grant they must take it on the same conditions as those upon which it was accepted in England. It was unfair both to the late and the present Government to say that they had not treated Scotland in the same way as England. Scotland must see that she had no right to receive the money except on the same conditions as it was received in England and Ireland. When those conditions were accepted, Scotland would, no doubt, receive the grant.
  MR. MARK STEWARTsaid, that the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury did not seem to understand the question. He thought that more time ought to be given the Government for considering the matter; and, therefore, he had great pleasure in supporting the Motion to report Progress.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that he remembered with pleasure the many occasions on which Scotch Members had lent their assistance to Irishmen on Irish questions. He thought, therefore, that the legitimate grievances of Scotchmen should be treated in a like spirit by Irish Members. The question now in dispute was in regard to medical relief in Scotland, and it seemed to him that there could be no question which more affected the Scotch nation than this. The hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) had not convinced him that the proposition for adjournment made by Scotch Members was at all unreasonable; and he should, therefore, give it his support.
  MR. D. M'LARENsaid, he was surprised that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) should treat the question in the manner he had done. Scotch Members were willing to have
  728
  proper legislation on this question; but they objected to its being treated in the manner it had been. When a Bill was brought in by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to that question, they were told by him that there was not time to discuss the Bill, and that they must either accept the measure proposed in its entirety, or have no Bill at all. The hon. Member for Oldham said that the Scotch people must accept this grant on the same terms as the English people. But he maintained that, under existing conditions, the terms were not the same, and could not be the same. In the case of England, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board and the Secretary held seats in that House, and it was open to any hon. Member to question them upon any matter that he might think fit. But in Scotland, instead of the Poor Law Board being represented in that House, they had a secret conclave called the Board of Supervision. It was merely a nominal Board, which, practically, consisted of one man, the Chairman, with a Secretary, and when any grievance arose there was no mode of obtaining an answer to it in that House. It was not right that the Scotch Poor Law Guardians should have taken away from them the power to remove an incompetent medical man without the consent of this Board of Supervision—that was, of one man sitting in Edinburgh, as was proposed by the Bill of last year. Then, again, it was probable that if placed under Government control the expenses would be much greater than they were now under local authority. In all probability, when part of the salaries were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, the expense to the ratepayers would be greater than at present, when the whole charge was defrayed from the rates. Government supervision led to extravagance, and the ultimate result to the ratepayers of the control being taken away from the local authorities would be increased expense. It was, therefore, impossible, under the present circumstances, to place Scotland under the same conditions as England.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, they were perfectly willing to accept the grant upon the same conditions as England with regard to the financial part of the matter, but not with regard to the administrative part. He thought that they

  729
  were right in asking for a postponement of the Vote, on the ground that no Member of the Government was sufficiently informed upon this subject. No occupant of the Treasury Bench seemed to be in a position to understand this matter; and he considered that the Vote should be postponed until Her Majesty's Government had informed themselves upon it. They only asked to be placed on an equality with England, and the matter could not be finally disposed of until some Member of Her Majesty's Government had fully considered it.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that he had no objection to the postponement of the Vote; but, by so doing, he must not be understood as yielding in any degree to the contention of the Scotch Members. Hon. Members who occupied seats in the last Parliament would remember that the hon. Baronet who lately occupied the position that he had the honour to hold (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) made his argument upon this matter as simple as possible. He simply said that the circumstances of English and Scotch people were alike, and that the same advances could not be made to Scotland, unless the conditions on which it received them were the same as those of England. It was said by hon. Members that the Board of Supervision in Scotland held a different position from the Local Government Board in England, That might, or might not, be the case; but it was obvious that this question was surrounded with difficulties. As hon. Members seemed to prefer it, he was willing to agree to a postponement of the Vote.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;
  Committee also report Progress, to sit again upon Monday next.

MERCHANT SEAMEN (PAYMENT OF WAGES) BILL— [BILL 119.]
(Mr. Ashley, Mr. Chamberlain.)
MERCHANT SEAMEN (PAYMENT OF WAGES) BILL— [BILL 119.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that the Bill which he was about to ask the House to read a second time was one of very small dimensions; but he ventured to think that, if passed, it would confer
  730
  very great benefit upon a large number of the community. Their merchant seamen were exposed to great evils and temptations at two constantly recurring periods in their career. The first period was when the sailor started on his voyage and received an advance note; the second period was when he came back from his voyage and received the accumulated earnings which were then due to him. This Bill had for its object the emancipation of the seamen from the entanglements and difficulties by which he was beset owing to the growth of bad habits and customs, and to restore to him his natural freedom of action. One way to attain this was by abolishing the present form of the advance note. Considering that there were so many new Members in the House who might not be familiar with this subject, he would explain what an advance note was. An advance note was a conditional order given by the shipowner or his agent directing the payment of a certain sum of money—generally about a month's wages—in advance to the seaman or his order, the condition being that the seaman should have gone to sea in a particular ship. The result of that form of the advance note was that nobody would cash it, except a peculiar class of persons who were ready to take the risk incident to the transaction—namely, the crimps. In 99 cases out of 100 the seaman could get no value for the advance note, except from the crimps, who only cashed it at an enormous discount. Another effect of this arrangement was that the crimp had a direct interest in keeping his eye on the seaman, so that he might not go from his bargain, but should get on board his ship in proper time. The only way the crimp had of securing that was by debauchery; therefore the crimp kept the seaman in a state of continual debauchery until the ship sailed, when he put him on board. But the evil did not stop there, for by putting the seaman on board in a state of intoxication the safety of the ship and the lives of all the crew were in danger. Then, again, no sooner did the sailor waken from his drunken bout, and become aware of the way in which he had been treated by the crimp, and of the manner in which he had been deprived of his natural liberty, than he took the first opportunity of paying off the crimp by desert-

  731
  ing as soon as he possibly could. By that means the crimp was defrauded of his money, the advance note being rendered valueless. The public and the shipowners had a direct interest in this question, because the lives and the property on board the vessel were endangered by the sailors coming on board in a state of drunkenness. The system of advance notes had been universally condemned by all the Commissions and Committees which had inquired into the subject, from that which sat five or six years ago down to the Committee of the year before last, of which he had the honour to be a Member. The system had met with universal condemnation, both in the interest of the shipowners as of everyone else. He would now proceed to deal with such objections as had been raised to the abolition of the advance note. It was said that its abolition would lead to the truck system. The ostensible reason for the advance note being given was to enable the seaman to pay for his outfit, and it was said by many shipowners that if the seaman did not have the advance note, he would not be able to pay for the clothes he required, and that the captain of his ship would be obliged to provide him with them. But this would not be the truck system. That system was one whereby a workman was compulsorily made always to take a certain portion of his wages in kind. But even if the results anticipated did constitute the truck system, it would be only what went on at present. Experience proved that, so far from seamen providing themselves with clothes with the advance note, very few did do so. Another favourite contention was that the abolition of the advance note would interfere with freedom of contract. He (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) did not think that they interfered with freedom of contract, because they did not interfere with an advance, but only with the form by which that advance was now made, which they said was demoralizing and unfair to the sailor. If hon. Members would look into the matter, they would see that the contract under the advance note was not properly one between the shipowner and the sailor, but between the shipowner and a third party—namely, the crimp. They were thus interfering not with a contract between the seaman and his employer,
  732
  but between the crimp and the shipowner. But even if it were an interference with contract that should not deter the House, for there were many cases in which public advantage justified interference with freedom of contract. The Legislature in this case, finding that the form of the advance was productive of numerous and preventible evils, said that it would not have an advance note, but that there might be a cash advance. The custom of advance notes had sprung up within the last 40 years, and the proposal in question only involved a return to the old plan, by which a seaman could only get an advance in money on the security of his kit, which he deposited on board when he engaged. Under that system there was an inducement held out to providence and sobriety—under the more modern system, good and bad sailors were treated all alike, the most reckless getting an "advance note" as easily—if not more easily—than the best. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had given Notice of his intention to move—
  "That it is the opinion of this House the exceptional Law by which seamen are liable to arrest without warrant and imprisonment with hard labour for simple breach of contract, should be repealed, and that such repeal would render unnecessary exceptional legislation to restrict the power of seamen to make contracts."
  It was his (Mr. Evelyn Ashley's) firm belief that the abolition of the advance note would tend more than anything else to do away with the arrest and imprisonment of seamen. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) wished that this subject should be referred to the Select Committee on Losses of Merchant Shipping. He (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) would only remind the hon. Member for Hull that if there was one subject more than another which had been thoroughly inquired into it was that which was dealt with by the present Bill. If one branch of the subject of merchant shipping was exhausted more than another before the Royal Commission it was that of the advance note. That being so, he thought it would be futile to refer this question to another Select Committee. The second period when the sailor was exposed to danger was on his return from his voyage, and while he was awaiting the money due to him, and he was then subjected to even greater

  733
  frauds than at the first period. He was then surrounded by birds of prey who even went down the river to meet him before his ship arrived. He was obliged to wait frequently a considerable number of days before anything was paid him, and that constituted the opportunity to debauch and defraud him. The present Bill proposed to limit that period to two days, exclusive of Sundays and Bank holidays. At this point he would pay a tribute to the exertions of the permanent officials of the Board of Trade, who had, during the last two or three years, without any pressure from outside, entirely from their own sense of duty, organized the transmission of seamen's wages, which had proved very successful in London, and was then being extended to Liverpool, Glasgow, Dundee, and Shields. The system to which he alluded was that an officer of the Board of Trade went on board a vessel as she was arriving, and ascertained which of the seamen would like to be sent home at once. Those who were willing to be so treated had a certain sum of money given to them by the official of the Board of Trade, who, on his part, received authority to settle the wages of the seamen with the owner, on his behalf. The seaman was then taken at once to the railway station, a ticket was given to him, and he was sent to the place to which he wished to go, the balance of his wages being afterwards forwarded to him. He thought hon. Members would see that it was an enormous advantage to the seamen to be able to reach his destination immediately without being obliged to wait about the docks. It had been objected that this system, by its partial application, had the effect of taking away seamen from the Port of London; but it would be seen that there would also be a current in the opposite direction as soon as the practice was generally adopted. Again, it had been found that the law forbidding persons to go on board ship without the consent of the master was not sufficiently stringent. The object of the 4th clause, therefore, was to make it certain that until the seaman had done with the ship he should not be exposed to the blandishments of the land sharks who batten on him. Then came a provision making service at sea for four years as necessary to qualify for the designation of an able
  734
  seaman. Some such provision was much wanted in order to improve the qualifications of our sea-going population. The next clause had for its chief object to give power for the rescinding of a contract between shipowner and apprentice, and which was desirable, because, as happened often, for instance, at Grimsby, although an apprentice turned out to be unfit for the sea, he could not be released from his indentures. In conclusion, he would merely say that the Bill, of which he had given a summary, had for its object to restore to the seaman that freedom of action which he had been deprived of by customs injurious to his welfare. He would move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Evelyn Ashley.)
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he must appeal to the House as to whether a Bill of such great importance should be brought forward for a second reading at that hour—12.45 A.M.—when few Members whose duty it was to consider the Bill thoroughly were present. The Government had had the advantage of explaining the measure at a considerable length, and he thought it was hardly reasonable to expect that it could be discussed in a proper manner under the circumstances to which he had alluded. For those reasons, without any desire to delay the Business of the Government, and after the explanation which had taken place, he begged leave to move that the debate be now adjourned.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he was pleased to second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, because it was only fair that the interests involved in a great question of the kind before the House should be fully and fairly discussed under the eyes of those persons who were accustomed to deal with it from different points of view. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade had spoken of the affairs of seamen as they existed 35 years ago, and not as they existed at the present day. The whole condition of the seafaring class had entirely changed. Large steam vessels had supplied the place of the old description of ships, and had afforded to the seaman an entirely different description of employment. They must not, in his opinion, hamper the

  735
  trade of the country by any fanciful ideas which might get into the head of the Secretary to the Board of Trade. He thought the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) only asked what was fair in moving the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Norwood.)
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to endorse the appeal made by the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), that they should not be called upon to discuss a Bill of such importance at so late an hour. Perhaps many hon. Members were not fully aware of the importance of the measure. And, moreover, very few hon. Members were present, which would render it impossible that proper attention should be given to the question. As a Member of the Committee of 1878, almost every meeting of which he had attended, and in reference to the question which the Secretary to the Board of Trade had chiefly drawn attention to—namely, that of advance notes, his impression was that nearly every Member of the Committee was in favour of their abolition; but they were told by shipowners, masters, and others of the highest authority, that if advance notes were done away with they would be unable to man their ships. The question involved the interest of the whole of the Mercantile Marine of the country, and he could not agree that they should be called upon at that hour to settle a question of such vital importance. There were, again, a great many details for discussion in Committee. Under the circumstances, he hoped that the Bill would be again brought forward at a time when it could be properly discussed.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that there was no doubt of the extreme importance of the Bill, and that if it were carried it would greatly benefit the seamen whom it had in view; but the importance of the proposed legislation was a reason which inclined the Government to yield to the appeal that had been made for a better opportunity of discussing the measure. The Government had been induced to bring forward the Bill by the belief that while hon. Members were anxious to discuss its details they were not seriously opposed to its principles.
  736
  After the representations that had been made, the Government would consent to the adjournment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.— [BILL 171.]
(Mr. Hibbert, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.— [BILL 171.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. STEVENSONregretted very much to oppose the Motion for the third reading of the annual Bill, which provided not only the money to be expended on public works, but also re-appointed for five years the Gentlemen to whom that duty had been intrusted. He had no objection to urge against the name of any Member of the 16 contained in the list to be appointed; but he would point out that in 1875 the list contained six Members of Parliament, while that which was now submitted contained those of two only—namely, the present Members for Glamorganshire and West Kent. Again, a very important change had been made in 1875, when a new system had been established, which did away with the appeal that lay to the Treasury, which had power to overrule the opinion of the Board and sanction loans which the Board had refused to make. But it was then provided that the Commissioners should supply an annual Report of their proceedings which had to be presented within two months of the end of March, the close of the financial year, so that the House might discuss the administration of the Board in the stages of the Annual Money Bill. But it had been found that the Report of last year had been for a long time delayed, and this year it had not yet been presented, which was entirely contrary to the intention of Parliament. He had frequently complained that the Board had not given effect to the intention of Parliament in regard to loans to harbours. He suggested that two other Members of Parliament, whose services would be very valuable to the proceedings and deliberations of the Board, should be added to the list which had been sub-

  737
  mitted; further, as they were not bound to appoint the Commissioners for five years, for the Act only provided that they should hold office for a term not exceeding that period, he suggested that they should now renew the appointment for one year only at this time. To enable the Government to re-consider the whole matter, and the House to go into the question of the policy of the Board, he begged to move that the Bill be recommitted, in order to make the present re-appointment for one year.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed in respect of Clause 2,"—(Mr. Stevenson,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he thought that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson) ought not to be adopted without great deliberation. The Commission had been established for the purpose of diminishing, as much as possible, the political pressure which might be brought to bear in obtaining the loans; and he could no help thinking that the attainment of that object would be rendered more difficult by the appointment of the Commission for a shorter time than that named in the Bill. His hon. Friend had also spoken of the disadvantage of the Commission including but two Members of Parliament; but, considering the great extent of the loans, it was most desirable that the members of the Board should be as independent as possible of all political influence, and look solely to the security on which the loans were to be advanced. With regard to the delay which had occurred in the presentation of the Re-port, the subject should be inquired into, and the Report presented at the earliest moment possible; but he could not give his support to the Motion for the re-commitment of the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he cordially supported the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury in his objection to the Motion of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Stevenson). There could be no greater danger than that to which the noble Lord had referred—namely,
  738
  the pressure which might be brought to bean on the issue of loans for considerations altogether apart from the validity of the security upon which they were granted. During his experience at the Treasury, he had found that in past times the pressure alluded to by the noble Lord had been exercised upon the Government of the day. He believed that a strong Board such as had been constituted, with a sense of responsibility, was likely to tend greatly to the advantage of the public at large, which had to be considered before the interests of particular localities, which were always brought to bear very prominently on the Government of the day. This Commission, in his opinion, was the better constituted, inasmuch as it did not include many Members of Parliament; and he would, perhaps, prefer that it should include no Members of Parliament at all. The duties of the Board were of a very important character, involving trust and responsibility, and were akin to those of a banker. They had to invest the funds at their disposal strictly upon the lines of the Act of Parliament, and in accordance with the trust reposed in them, and no pressure should be exercised upon them inconsistent with the proper discharge of their public duty. He cordially supported the view of the noble Lord, and trusted that the House would adopt that view and secure to the Commission the full responsibility which belonged to them, and which an annual appointment would certainly not give them.
  MR. STEVENSONsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time.
  Verbal Amendment made: Bill passed.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [27th May] reported.
  First Ten Resolutions agreed to.
  Eleventh Resolution read a first time.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that when the Vote was in Committee he asked a question which he was requested to repeat upon Report. It appeared that under the Order in Council of the 7th,

  739
  of March last fees were to be levied upon candidates for the Civil Service. The sum of £4,000 was charged in respect of the expenses for the military examination. He wished to know whether candidates for military commissions were charged fees in like manner as the Civil Service candidates?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,in reply, said, that military candidates were charged fees like other descriptions of candidates.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

LEASES BILL.— [BILL 177.]
(Mr. Warton, Mr. M'Intyre.)
LEASES BILL.— [BILL 177.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. WARTON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a Bill for the purpose of removing some of the evils that now affected leasehold property. It often happened that tenants entered into very stringent covenants, frequently of a somewhat vexatious character, which were enforced against them. This Bill was to give relief in some of those cases. The 4th section of the Bill was for the purpose of remedying a slight omission in Mr. Marten's Bill passed in the previous Session. The other part of the Bill dealt with the costs of a conveyance. It frequently happened that in transactions where building societies were concerned, as well as in other cases, the lessees were made to pay a large amount of costs which ought not properly to fall upon them. It was proposed by the Bill to remedy this as well as some other inequalities. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Warton.)
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that although no notice of opposition to the Bill had been given, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) could scarcely hope that it could be read a second time at that advanced hour. The Bill was one which proposed to make important changes in the law; and although it was true that it had been once before the House on another occasion, he did not think that it had been sufficiently
  740
  discussed to justify its being read a second time at that hour of the morning. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the Bill was a very important one in regard to its effect upon vested rights; and it was important that it should be fully discussed. As he did not think that it could have proper discussion at that hour, he should second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, he should have no objection to the adjournment of the debate, if the Law Officers of the Crown would give him their assistance by allowing him a day.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Friday next.

MOTIONS.
  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," said, he must express his regret that he rose at an hour of the morning which would prevent his entering into any lengthened statement of the provisions of the Bill he was about to introduce. As great expectations had undoubtedly been raised upon all subjects connected with the Irish Land Question, he wished to say that he did not propose in the short Bill which he now asked leave to introduce into the House to deal with that question generally. He had read the Irish Land Act of 1870 very carefully since he had heard the description of that measure given by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; and he was anxious that the House should pass a short measure, repealing those portions of the 9th section of that Act which limited the discretion of the Court in awarding compensation for disturbance in cases of ejectment for non-payment of rent. He was anxious to do something during the

    741
    present short Session to relieve the tenant farmers of Ireland from the operation of that section, without prejudging their case, or interfering with any other measure that might be brought forward. The provisions of this short Bill would enable a tenant to get justice from a Court; and he would express a hope that Her Majesty's Government would be able to give their support to it. It would be perfectly idle to enter into a discussion of the measure at that hour; and having explained its provisions as shortly as he could he would ask leave to bring it in.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to amend "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870)," ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'CONNOR POWER, Mr. GRAY, Dr. COMMINS, Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY, and Mr. SYNAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 190.]

    COMMONS.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed, to consist of Eleven Members, Six Members to be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection, "to consider every Report made by the Inclosure Commissioners certifying the expediency of any Provisional Order for the inclosure or regulation of a Common, and presented to the House during the last or present Sessions, before a Bill be brought in for the confirmation of such Order."
    Instruction to the Committee, That they have power in respect to each such Provisional Order to inquire and report to the House whether the same should be confirmed by Parliament, and, if so, whether with or without modification: and in the event of their being of opinion that the same should not be confirmed, except subject to modifications, to report such modifications accordingly with a view to such Provisional Order being remitted to the Inclosure Commissioners.
    Committee nominated:—Mr. SPENCER WALPOLE, Mr. LEVESON GOWER, Sir WALTER BART-TELOT, Mr. PELL, Mr. ASHTON DILKE, and Mr. BRYCE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records: Five to be the quorum.—(Sir. Arthur feel.)

    PARTNERSHIPS (NO. 2) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to consolidate and amend the Law of Partnership.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHITWELL, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. MACKINTOSH, and Mr. LEWIS FRY.
    Bill presented, and read the first lime. [Bill 195.]

    INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CALLAN, Bill to extend and amend the provisions of the Industrial
    742
    Schools Act, and to confer additional powers en Boards of Guardians in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CALLAN, Mr. MARTIN, Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, and Mr. SHAW.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 197.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several Lords.

BURIALS BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that last night he had raised no objection to the fixing of the second reading of the Burials Bill for Thursday next, on the understanding that it was to he in the hands of noble Lords to-day. He, however, had not yet received a copy, and he did not think it could have been circulated. He hoped the Lord Chancellor would exercise his influence with that very inaccessible person, the Queen's printer, in order that the Bill might speedily be in the hands of their Lordships. The details of the Bill were very important, and it was essential that they should he fully considered.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Bill was in type yesterday, and wanted only the addition of the proper endorsement; he had, therefore, good reason to believe, and did believe, that it would be ready to-day, and that it would be delivered as early as possible. He felt sure that the noble Marquess would be in possession of the Bill by the next delivery, either this evening, or, at all events, by to-morrow morning.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he believed, if the printer had chosen to make due haste, the Bill might have been delivered this morning.

THE GOVERNOR GENERAL OF INDIA—APPOINTMENT OF THE MARQUESS OF RIPON.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNErose to call the attention of the House to the appointment of the Marquess of Ripon to the office of Governor General of India, and the inconsistency of such appointment with the views expressed by the Prime Minister in pamphlets published in 1875, entitled Rome, and Newest Fashions in Religion; and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Prime Minister adheres to his statements made in these pamphlets, or does not—
"Defend, even in argument, polemical language…used…when in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility;"
612
and whether, if adopting the latter conclusion, he will apologize to the Roman Catholics for having used words "that may be justly described of a painful and wounding character;" or, if he adheres to statements made in the pamphlets referred to, will explain how, as a friend of civil and religious liberty, he has appointed the Marquess of Ripon, who—
"If any conflict arise between the Pope and the Queen, intends to follow the Pope, and let the Queen shift for herself?"
The noble Lord observed, that so many noble Lords, in presenting Petitions against the appointment of Lord Ripon, had repudiated all sympathy with them, that he must shortly inquire why that was the case, and whether he was justified in bringing a somewhat unpalatable subject before the House. The reasons why it was unpalatable were evident. Politically, from the two great Parties in the State being equally divided, and the Roman Catholic minority being united, that body often had the casting vote in the election of the numerous electorial bodies by which this country was governed. Thus, that body had an undue influence as holding the balance of power. Socially, Roman or Ritualistic Catholicism had invaded their hearths and their homes, so both politically and socially it was a sore subject. But, though these circumstances made it uncomfortable, they must not shut their eyes to the fact that in every country in Europe, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, the struggle between the Church of Borne and the civil power had gone on for 1,000 years, and would continue so long as man made religion a steppingstone to power. When a new Government was formed, what its policy would be was judged of, not only by the fact of whether a statesman was Roman Catholic or Protestant, but by what his proclivities were—whether æsthetical, sensational, or those of common sense, Ultramontane, or national. The questions were as burning here as in every country in Europe, aye, through great part of the world. They were matters that it was reasonable for Parliament to consider and discuss, and a comparatively new issue was raised by the appointment of a convert to Rome to the highest office, out of these Kingdoms, it was in the power of the Crown to bestow. In drawing the attention of their Lordships to the objections to this ap-

613
pointment, he should trouble them but little with his own views. They were considered fanatical and bigoted; but he demurred to those epithets, because he only touched on the religious aspect of the case as far as it interfered with civil rights and liberties; but he should rely in support of his case on expressions of public opinion through the public Press, and on the carefully-elaborated statements of the Prime Minister, as contained in a book entitled Rome's Newest Fashions in Religion. The great learning and ability of the right hon. Gentleman none would gainsay. His admirers believed that he was always guided by motives at once the most enlightened and disinterested. Far be it from him to question the fact, though sometimes smaller minds were startled by the apparent inconsistencies of this great man which were coincident with the requirements of his becoming Prime Minister. In a letter he had received from Mr. Godley, Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, he dwelt on the honour and integrity of the Marquess of Ripon. No one called them in question, nor doubted his intended impartiality in dealing with religious matters; but the Prime Minister had shown that as a convert to Rome he had renounced his "moral and mental freedom," and that his honour, integrity, and impartiality depended on another. He had a slight acquaintance with the noble Marquess, and, sitting on a Committee with him, he had found him a very courteous gentleman. But as a public man he felt it his duty some years back to call in question the part the noble Marquess and Her Majesty's Government played in negotiating the Treaty of Washington. Sent to Washington to reject the extortionate demands of the United States Government, to insist on the questions at issue being regulated by the old established code of national law, he had agreed that all claims should be settled by arbitration, and that arbitration should be guided by an entirely new-fangled code of national law, which, of course, resulted in the taxpayers in this country being mulcted in so extravagant a sum that now, after 10 years had passed, no claimants being entitled to receive it, the Government of the United States had above £3,000,000 of British money undisposed of. The British taxpayer advanced a large sum to persuade the clause on fisheries to be
614
accepted by the Government of the Dominion. That was, as he had foreseen, still a troublesome question. To have been made a Marquess for this failure seemed to have been no inconsiderable reward. It certainly could not be on account of this most humiliating Treaty that the noble Marquess was appointed to the high post he now filled. They must, therefore, look further ahead. He feared, though he knew that there were a few at least of their Lordships who sympathized with his views, that their sympathy would not meet with any expression that evening; and, therefore, he must show from other sources what was, and had been, public opinion on this matter. First, he would read an extract from The Times of the 3rd of September, 1874—
"But a nobleman who becomes a convert to Roman Catholicism forfeits at once the confidence of the English people. Such a step involves a complete abandonment of any claim to political or even social influence in the nation at large, and can only be regarded as betraying an irreparable weakness of character. To become a Roman Catholic and remain a thorough Englishman are, it cannot be disguised, almost incompatible conditions. We do not for a moment doubt that men who have been born and bred up in the Roman Catholic faith may retain their creed as a harmless and colourless element of their opinions. But when a man in the prime of life abandons the faith of Protestantism for that of Home, his mind must necessarily have undergone what to Englishmen can only seem a fatal demoralization."
Next he would read a protest from an influential Congregational organ, The Fountain. It said—
"Lord Ripon is a pervert to Roman Catholicism; and perverts are always remarkable for the fiery zeal with which they propagate their newly-embraced doctrines. Have we any reason to suppose that Lord Ripon will be an exception to the rule? Is it not extremely probable that he will use his great authority and influence for the advancement of Popery? There is going on in India a fierce conflict betwixt Protestantism and Romanism, and this appointment is a distinct advantage to the latter. Indeed, it would scarcely be too much to say that Mr. Gladstone has, by this one act, conferred upon Popery greater patronage than could have been given to it by any other man or in any other way. The Bishop of Calcutta goes to India as the representative of the Queen, and the Viceroy goes, as far as religion is concerned, as the representative of the Pope! And Roman Catholics swear allegiance to the spiritual King first, and to the earthly Monarch second. What if the Queen should have in India a Viceroy who regards her as being below another? Certainly the Marquess of Ripon will not attend the ministrations of the clergy who represent the Protestant Church of the people and Crown of

615
England; so that we shall have the anomalous spectacle of the Queen's political representative refusing to accept the services of the Queen's religious representatives. A Roman Catholic Viceroy must have chaplains of the same faith; 'he must he surrounded by priests and masses; and his whole influence must work in favour of priestcraft and Popery. This appointment will be looked upon as a bestowment of patronage upon a religion which is hated by the English people. We observe that a protest was entered against the Marquess of Ripon's appointment by some members of the Baptist Union. The gentlemen who entered that protest acted in harmony with the views of Protestant Nonconformists throughout the country."
He was informed that Mr. Gladstone's statement—
"That the office of Viceroy was detached in a remarkable degree from all direct contact with religious and ecclesiastical interests,"
was contrary to the fact. The Viceroy had absolute control over every chaplain. He located them, invested them, even granted or refused their applications for furlough, &c. The Indian Bishops had no jurisdiction over Church of England chaplains. Mr. Gladstone stated "that he would act impartially in religious matters." But in any case of conflict between Roman Catholic and Protestant Missionaries, how could Lord Ripon as a good Catholic act impartially? His Church had forbidden that any but the Roman Church should be countenanced by the State. That was not an abstract proposition; for the present Pope, supposed to be more liberal than his predecessor, had refused to have any official intercourse with the Government of Italy, because that Government sanctioned the exercise of freedom of worship. He could understand that the Roman Catholic Church was sufficiently astute to temporize in this case, as it did at the time of Roman Catholic Emancipation. The Prime Minister had fully exposed this line of action, and this appointment was intended as a precedent for future use. As to expression of public opinion against this appointment, he must acknowledge that it had been small, though the return of Conservatives for Oxford and the Wigtown boroughs was in some measure owing to it; and there had been large meetings in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Liverpool condemning it. Had the appointment been anticipated? The Mid Lothian progress would have been impaired by it; but there was this patent fact beyond dispute—powerful, united,
616
and rich as was the Roman Catholic body, not one Roman Catholic Representative had been returned for any constituency in Great Britain. Some who had formerly represented English constituencies had retired on changing their religion, and now represented Irish Roman Catholic constituencies. It was an anomaly that they refused Roman Catholic Representatives and accepted Roman Catholic Rulers. It was an evidence that for a time their Radicalism exceeded their Protestantism, and also was evidence of the belief of the residuum, that the Apostle of Disorder would resolve society into its original elements, and" that out of the chaos "the People's William would provide them with beer and baccy not earned by the sweat of their brow. His objections to the appointment of the Marquess of Ripon might thus be summed up. First, because, though not contrary to the letter, it was contrary to the spirit of the laws which preclude a Roman Catholic from occupying the Throne of these Realms, and from filling the position of Viceroy in Ireland; secondly, because the Queen, having been created Empress of India, it was evident, by implication, that the same restrictions existed to the appointment of Her Majesty's Representative to rule over 200,000,000 of her Eastern subjects; and, thirdly, because the appointment was a precedent for changing those laws which exclude a Roman Catholic from the Throne of this country, which laws were found necessary to preserve the independence of the Throne as well as their civil and religious liberties. The last, and not the least, important witness he would call was the Prime Minister of England himself. To understand well the full force of Mr. Gladstone's publication of Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion, they must remember that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that a short time previous to its publication "the Roman Catholic Prelacy in Ireland," by the direct influence which they exercised over a certain number of Irish Members, succeeded in turning his Government out of Office. It appeared to him that this was, in itself, sufficient and complete evidence of the difficulty that existed in the employment of Ministers holding Ultramontane views in the government of this country. The difficulty arose from the fact, proved in this case, that they were Catholics first

617
and Englishmen after. But, unless the common belief was mistaken, this instance of the interference of the Church of Rome in the decision of the House of Commons was more important than it at first appeared to be. The common belief was that the Irish Roman Catholic Prelates would have accepted the University Bill; that they had come to an agreement to this effect with the Government of the right hon. Gentleman; but that they received a direct mandate from Rome to throw it out, not on account of its own demerits, but because it was thought by the Curia that it would better serve the ends of the Church of Rome on the Continent of Europe. There were great hopes at the time that Legitimacy and the Roman Catholic Church would be re-established with Henri V. in France and Don Carlos in Spain; and the Curia believed that the old English Tory would so rejoice in the re-establishment of Legitimacy that a Tory Government would be more in accord with these designs than one that was Radical. Thus in 1874, by orders from Rome, one English Government was turned out and another brought into power. Was it the part of wise statesmen to put out of their calculation such a power as this? Was it the will of the people of Great Britain that the decisions of Parliament should be governed from Rome? But what had Lord Ripon's appointment to do with this? It was a not unimportant link in the chain by which the Roman Catholic Church was binding the people of this country. He must ask their Lordships to allow him to read a few ex-tracts or summaries from the work of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said that his treatise was "defensive, not offensive; not theological, and not controversial, save in its civil bearing;" that he regretted wounding moderate Roman Catholics, but that this was brought upon them by the action of their Church.
"All other Christian Churches," he said, "are content with freedom in their own domain-The Roman Catholic Church claims an imperium in imperio."
He also drew out the following propositions, and re-affirms them through 200 pages:—1. That Rome has substituted for the proud boast of semper eadem, a policy of violence and change of faith. 2. That she has refurbished and paraded anew every rusty tool she was fully thought to have disused. 3. That no
618
one can now become her convert without renouncing his moral and mental freedom and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another; and 4. That she has equally repudiated modern thought and ancient history. Mr. Godley, replying for the Prime Minister, referred to the appointment of the Earl of Kenmare. The Resolutions he forwarded to Mr. Gladstone did not mention this appointment. Living in a Roman Catholic country, he did not class old Roman Catholics and converts to Rome in the same category. The former might religiously be good Catholics and in no wise Ultramontane. The latter must accept all the newest fashions in religion. The Prime Minister objected to his quotations as incomplete and misleading, and he referred to the following passage in his work:—
"I cannot but say that the immediate purpose of my appeal has been attained, in so far that the loyalty of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in the mass remains untainted and secure."
But, in the same page, he states as follows:—
"This means that the poison circulated from Rome has not actually been taken into the system."
And through the whole of his work he reverts to the former propositions as showing—
"How absolute is the obedience and submission required by the Church of Rome;"
And concludes by saying—
"The purpose of my pamphlet was to show that the directors of the Romish Church had in the councils of the Vatican committed a gross offence against civil authority and civil freedom."
Adding that he writes
"Under the sense of his responsibility to a higher power than public opinion."
The Marquess of Ripon had never repudiated or minimized his sense of obligation to all the doctrines of his new Church. He commenced by giving up his position as Grand Master of Freemasons, a post of considerable social distinction, in obedience to the decrees of his Church, a society to which many Roman Catholics still belonged; and he thought the noble Marquess would not accept gratefully an explanation that would make him aught but an obedient son of the Church, to which all his own views of honour, integrity, and equity must be subordinated. He believed, and the country believed, that the noble Marquess was appointed

619
Governor General of India because he had surrendered his mental and moral freedom to the Church of Rome! The last Government was designated "a Government of surprises; "this Government was a Government of apologies." When in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility" the Prime Minister in his cacoethes loquendi insulted the Emperor of Austria. He used "words of a painful and wounding character." He could not give His Imperial Majesty a place, so he now expressed his concern and promised to forget the ill language he used! In his cacoethes scribendi he exposed "the inconsistency of Vaticanism and civil liberty." He offended a mightier Power, and now again he had "banished the statements he made from his mind," and had made more solid amends by handing over the government of 200,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects to the most humble, but most influential neophyte to the Church of Rome—
"That, repudiating modern thought and ancient history, he may upon these unfortunate people use every rusty tool that she has now refurbished and paraded anew."
He wished to inquire whether he interpreted this appointment aright? Did the Prime Minister withdraw the statements made in Home and the Newest Fashions in Religion, and make this practical apology for his error, or would Her Majerty's Government explain how the Marquess of Ripon, a convert to the Church of Rome, and one who—
"If any conflict arose between the Pope and the Queen, intended to follow the Pope and let the Queen shift for herself,"
was appointed to the position of Governor General of India?
EARL GRANVILLE: Though I cannot, my Lords, agree with the somewhat invidious reasons which the noble Lord has given for it, I admit it is likely that the Question is not one which commends itself to the judgment of either side of your Lordships' House. On the other hand, I do not in the slightest degree complain of the noble Lord raising the question. If he really believes, as he has just stated, that Lord Ripon was selected at this critical moment in Indian affairs, not on account of his fitness for the post, but on account of his subserviency to Rome, I think he was quite right in calling attention to the subject. But I should like to say a few
620
words with regard to the terms of the Notice which the noble Lord laid upon your Lordships' Table. I remember Archbishop Whately being examined before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, when a rather long question was put to him by a right rev. Prelate. The Archbishop paused a little while, and then asked—"Is this a question, or is it an answer?" Now, my Lords, I am not quite sure that that observation would not apply to the Notice of Question, interlarded as it was with arguments, insinuations, and quotations, more or less correct, made by the noble Lord. The noble Lord seems desirous of raising two questions. First of all, he wishes expressly to ventilate Mr. Gladstone's opinions as to Roman Catholicism; and, in the next place, he wishes to point out the impropriety of the appointment of Lord Ripon to the Viceroyalty of India. My Lords, I do not think it a very convenient thing to call upon a third person to go into an explanation of a matter of this sort, which the noble Lord himself brings forward by casting on the Table of the House a quantity of short disjointed sentences without their contexts, and with very incorrect references to the documents from which they have been extracted. I am, myself, perfectly satisfied with one extract from Mr. Gladstone's pamphlet on Vaticanism which the noble Lord himself quoted—whore my right hon. Friend states that the result of his appeal had been to establish the fact that the loyalty of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects was, in the mass, "untainted and secure." It appears to me that that is an observation which is perfectly consistent with Mr. Gladstone's recommending to the Sovereign a person who, for other reasons, he considered to be fit for the post of Viceroy. Now, the noble Lord objects to Lord Ripon because he was engaged in the Alabama negotiations. Those were friendly negotiations; and, without going into the question at all, I may say that I heartily rejoice that those negotiations occurred, and at the result they produced; but it would be a severe rule of ostracism, indeed, if all public men who, like the Marquess of Ripon and Sir Stafford Northcote, at great self-sacrifice engaged in such negotiations, were excluded from serving their Queen for the future. With regard to the question whether the fact of Lord Ripon becoming a Roman Catho-

621
lie excluded him from high office, the noble Lord referred to the history of 1,000 years. My Lords, I will refer only to the history of the last 50 years. Is the noble Lord aware that during those years the abolition of religious tests occurred; that Roman Catholics were emancipated; that Jews were emancipated; and that, with the exception of an infinitesimally small number of offices, all the Departments of the State were thrown open to all Her Majesty's subjects, without limit and without restriction? The noble Lord seems to think that there is something particular in the case of India, which makes it unfit that a Roman Catholic should be at the head of it. I should like to appeal on that point to my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Northbrook), who has recently been Viceroy of India, and who is also acquainted with the working of most of the important Departments at home. I should like to know from him whether in any respect religious matters come to be more dealt with by one holding the position of Viceroy than would be the case in any other Department of the State? The noble Lord inaccurately stated the population of India to be 200,000,000. I think the population, by the last Census, is more like 300,000,000; and I have heard a distinguished Anglo-Indian say that he believed it would take a Commission 10 years to ascertain the different religious creeds, sects, and sub-division of sects, which exist among that enormous population. There are, I believe, only 2,000,000 of Christians among the 300,000,000; and of the 2,000,000 the overwhelming majority are persons who—whether they are good Catholics or not—profess to be Roman Catholics. I think, indeed, they number something like 1,900,000. Lord Ripon, if he had so desired it, might have surrounded himself with persons of that persuasion. But what took place on his receiving his appointment? In the first place, he was presented with an address from those who knew him best and know him up to the present moment, including the signatures of several distinguished Protestant clergymen, testifying their satisfaction at the appointment he had received. And whom did the noble Lord take out with him? He selected as his Military Secretary, not a Jesuit, not a Roman Catholic, but a distinguished soldier, who happens to be son-in-law of
622
the Protestant Archdeacon of Calcutta. Who is his Private Secretary—a most confidential office? He appointed Colonel Gordon, who is well known not only for the marvellous success he has had in dealing with Asiaties, but for the strong Protestant and Evangelical opinions which he holds. I do not cite these things in proof of Lord Ripon's liberal views, but to show that his religious opinions and belief did not interfere with his judgment when making appointments which I think your Lordships will say were prudent appointments. Lord Ripon, having to deal with temporal matters in India, chose the persons he thought best adapted to aid him in dealing with those temporal matters, without going into any invidious inquisition into their individual religious opinions. I stated just now, that the noble Lord brought the question before the House thinking that Her Majesty's Government had done something dangerous to the Protestant religion. But, my Lords, I would ask, are such statements as we heard in the course of the speech of the noble Lord calculated to add strength to the Protestant religion, or to recommend that religion either to Roman Catholics or to any other portion of the community? I believe that the real strength of the Protestant religion lies in something very different, and that you will strengthen and confirm it by showing what large and liberal views Protestants do take of the sacred cause of religious freedom.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, that a considerable portion of the address of the noble Lord opposite was devoted to an incrimination of a particular act of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and to uncomplimentary observations with reference to the noble Marquess the Viceroy of India. If the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government thought it worth while to defend his consistency no one was better able to do so, and it was not his purpose to enter upon any vindication of the diplomatic services of the noble Marquess. But under the personal question raised by the noble Lord there undoubtedly lay one of real feeling which affected the consciences and the hearts of many pious persons. There were undoubtedly some persons connected with Protestant communities who were solicitous on the subject to which the noble Lord's Question referred, and who thought that the

623
nomination of a Roman Catholic to the high Office of Viceroy of India might possibly, in one form or another, militate against Protestant interests in that Empire. It was not altogether superfluous for one in an impartial and indifferent position like himself to endeavour to show that it was altogether impossible, in the nature of things, that the power of the Viceroy should be used in any way to the prejudice of the Protestant interest in India. First of all, he did not doubt that the Marquess 'of Ripon would deal with perfect impartiality towards all religions simply from a sense of duty to his Sovereign and his country. He firmly believed the noble Marquess would never have undertaken the momentous duties he had if he had not conscientiously felt he could perform them all in a totally natural, candid, and faithful spirit. As all might not have the same confidence in the character of the noble Marquess that he had, or might believe that the change in his religion might prejudice him in some special circumstances his natural rectitude might possibly not be able to resist, he thought it right to affirm that, even if the noble Marquess had a very different disposition and intentions, he still could do no harm to the Protestant interest in India. For that belief he would give a few reasons. Protestant interests in India consisted, first, of an official establishment, which was maintained by the Government and paid for out of the Indian Revenues for the religious worship of the Military and Civil Services in India; and, secondly, of the Protestant missions, which were largely subsidized and supported by the Government, not as religious, but as educational and philanthropic agencies. It had been stated that the relations of the Governor General towards the Protestant Establishment were very direct and constant; but he should have said exactly the contrary, and those relations were altogether impartial and exceptional. As to the mission establishments, it was rather the local Governments of Madras, Bombay, and the North-West Provinces that had to deal with them. Besides, whatever relations there were with the Governor General, they were not subject to the mere caprice of an individual, but they were strictly governed by regulations which he had no power to alter. Theoretically he had absolute power, but only in theory; for
624
changes must come before the local Governments and also before his Council, which was substantially Protestant. If all those difficulties could be got over, and something objectionable were done, there would be an appeal to the Secretary of State. It was therefore impossible to suppose that the Governor General could carry by surprise anything which would be prejudicial to the interests of Protestants. But let them assume that the noble Marquess could do something which would be antagonistic to Protestant interests in India, he would ask them to consider that his government there was only for a few years, and the orders made would be reversed. But, in fact, the idea that he could do anything prejudicial to the Protestant religion in India was absolutely chimerical. Indeed, there was not so much to fear from the action of a Roman Catholic Viceroy as, in some circumstances, there might be to fear from a Protestant Viceroy, because the action of the former would be subjected to the severest scrutiny, and any questionable proceeding would expose him to obloquy. Therefore, a Roman Catholic Viceroy might shrink from doing some things with reference to Protestant establishments which would not be wrong merely on account of his peculiar position. And, in fact, the Viceroy who acted with the greatest severity towards Protestant establishments was Lord Mayo, who had very decided Protestant sympathies, and whose character was distinguished by Christian charity in the broadest sense. He was able to act towards the Protestant establishments in India in a manner a Roman Catholic Viceroy would have had difficulty in doing. A Roman Catholic Viceroy must necessarily be in favour of religious agencies for secular instruction and of necessary establishments. It was natural he should be peculiarly favourable to the establishments of his own religion; but if he desired to act justly and liberally by Roman Catholic missions—which had a very high claim in India to our sympathy—he must be prepared to act with equal liberality and justice to Protestant missions. It was impossible that a Viceroy could set up one standard for one branch and another for another branch, or that he should be able to give an advantage to Catholics over Protestants. If it were said that Protestant missions, while spared from

625
direct attack, might be doomed to languish for five years, he did not believe that could be; for the Viceroy had nothing to do with them officially except as educational and philanthropic instruments. The noble Marquess had an accurate and a profound knowledge of all educational institutions; and he believed that he would in India take as much action in favour of Protestant educational establishments as in favour of Roman Catholic. He had himself visited all the missionary establishments in India, and he had found them all, though under different systems, occupied in doing good, and with great zeal. He regarded them all with equal esteem and of equal value. Those missionary bodies had been endeavouring to vanquish prejudices against Englishmen, and they had conquered the hearts of millions of Natives. The missionary agencies in India were working together, not for power, not for profit, not for pay, but for the service of mankind, as circumstances required. Those who had seen them and were acquainted with them would never be induced to believe that an English statesman who had voluntarily accepted from the hands of his Sovereign the highest trust in her power to bestow would ever deal with the solemn and sacred interests of Christianity in India in the spirit of a sectarian or partizan. The noble Marquess's position was surrounded by many difficulties, and he would require all the confidence and sympathies which his countrymen could give him to enable him to overcome them. He trusted it was not too much to ask his noble Friend opposite, and those with whom he usually acted, not to add to those difficulties anxieties and dangers which were of a peculiarly artificial and illusory character.
THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK: I entirely agree in the main with my noble Friend who has last addressed the House. It is perfectly true, as my noble Friend has said, that there is probably no Office under the Crown in which the occupier has less to do with religious questions of any kind, connected with either the Protestant or the Roman Catholic Church, than the Office of Viceroy of India. During the four years that I was Viceroy I can hardly remember a single instance in which a question connected with the ecclesiastical establishments of India came before me, unless it
626
was concerning the destination of a chaplain. My Lords, I deeply regret the course which has been taken by the noble Lord, for this reason—that in India, where Christians of all denominations are few in number, among an enormous mass of Hindoos and Mahometans, I am thankful to say that those differences which have been so enlarged upon by the noble Lord opposite sink into insignificance; and Christians of all denominations have united in their exertions for the temporal benefit of the Natives. It constantly happens that a meeting for the benefit of the Natives of India is supported by the Protestant Bishop of Calcutta, by the Roman Catholic Archbishop, as well as by ministers of other persuasions. My Lords, I feel that to assert that the fact of my noble Friend being a Roman Catholic is a disqualification must, in order to be of effect at all, have a tendency to bring into India sectarian differences and prejudices, from which that country is now fortunately almost entirely free. My Lords, this is a question which affects the whole of the people of India, the 200,000,000 or 300,000,000 of people under the dominion of Her Majesty. It is to the interest of those Natives that the best man that can be found should be sent out to India as Viceroy; and the miserable law having been struck off the Statute Book which placed our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects under disabilities from serving the Crown, it seems to me that the simple question was whether the noble Marquess was the most fitting man to be sent to India, and not whether he was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. My Lords, I entertain a profound conviction that my noble Friend will perform his duty in India with judgment, with courage, and with entire impartiality; and with this sincere belief, it was with great regret that I heard the noble Lord bringing these small sectarian prejudices to interfere with a career which I trust and believe will be of substantial benefit both to this country and to the Natives of India.
LORD DENMANsaid, that in 1616 an Ambassador from James I. had written to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that in India—where Roman Catholics were tolerated—there were more churches than Christians. He feared that the noble Marquess might have people about him who would not forward the spread of the Bible; and it was an unfortunate

627
thing that there should be a Viceroy who was, confessedly, an object of suspicion to Protestants. He believed, however, that, now, Christians when in foreign lands had very much fewer differences than at home; and he remembered Bishop Selwyn telling him that once in New Zealand, being out in the rain, a Roman Catholic priest, taking away everything that could offend a Protestant, offered him the use of his chapel. Lord Plunket and Mr. Grattan, when pleading for Catholic Emancipation, declared that no danger would arise from it to the Protestant Church. In Edinburgh, in the winter, Mr. Justin M'Carthy paid a high tribute of praise to the spread of religion in Scotland. He (Lord Denman) regretted that the noble Viceroy had deserted his first denomination; but he did not think that the discussion could do any harm, because there was a strong feeling in this country on the part of many persons against the Marquess of Ripon's appointment. However, now that they had been informed that the Governor General would not use any influence against the spread of pure religion, he advised their Lordships to let bygones be bygones, and make the best of the position.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNErose to reply, and was stating that the noble Earl the Leader of the Government (Earl Granville), and the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook), might have read the statements of the Prime Minister, they had not thought them worthy of consideration, but had replied to his arguments upon other grounds—when
THE MARQUESS OF BATH THE MARQUESS OF BATH rose to Order. There was no Question before the House.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsubmitted that though there was no Question, it was the practice of the House to allow a few observations in reply. He had been a Member of their Lordships' House for 10 years, and it was the habit of the House to permit a reply.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that he had been a Member of the House for 28 years, and he could assure the noble Lord that when a Question only was asked, and a discussion took place, a reply was not allowed.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsubmitted that it was unusual; but, per-
628
haps, the noble Earl the Leader of the House would express his opinion upon this point?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he felt bound to state that the noble Lord was right as to the practice that had grown up; but it was not so much allowing a reply as allowing an explanation to be made at the end of the discussion of some points which had arisen in consequence of asking the Question.
LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEexpressed his thanks to the noble Earl for his opinion, and said, that the appointment had caused a great feeling of excitement amongst Protestants, and although that feeling might be dormant, it was not one that politicians could despise, and one he hoped and believed would ere long make itself felt by both Parties in Parliament.

THE STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—TUNKU ALUM—DOMICILIARY VISIT AT SINGAPORE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the domiciliary visit to the house of Tunku Alum arose out of the action of Colonel Anson in the affairs of Muar, to which he had called the attention of the House last year. He wished to ask the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the last Paper in the Muar Parliamentary Papers, which was a letter of Sir William Robinson's, dated October 24, 1878, to Tunku Alum, in which he said that his pension would be paid to him "so long as Her Majesty's Government shall deem proper." This was what the Governor of the Straits Settlements had no right to do, for this money belonged to Tunku Alum under the Treaty of 1855, which was given at the beginning of these Papers; it was not British money at all, and was money accruing from a settlement made between the father of Tunku Alum and the father of the present Maharaja of Johore, and which had been countersigned and sanctioned by the Governor of the Straits Settlements. On a former occasion the Straits authorities had attempted, or threatened, to stop the payment to the Raja of Keddah of his annuity, which was the rent for the Island of Pulo Penang; but the Indian Government had not allowed this to be done. The Under Secretary of State who represented the late Government was not now in the House;

  629
  but that was of little consequence, since such concord and harmony reigned between the Colonial Secretaries of State of the late and present Governments that they resembled helmsmen at the wheel relieving one another in alternate watches. When he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) before spoke of the election of the Maharaja as Ruler of Muar, he said it would lead to bloodshed and disturbances. This had been the case, though the Maharaja and the Straits authorities had endeavoured to represent the casualties as having been limited to those caused by two bodies of the Maharaja's forces accidentally firing upon each other. Now, there had been a domiciliary visit and arrest of the Secretary of Tunku Alum in Singapore. This could not be done under English law. It might be done under the Indian Penal Code; but he thought the noble Earl the Secretary of State would find that the law had been strained, and that the magistrate had with the same breath ordered the arrest of the Secretary and the search for the letters he had written, and that his noble Friend would not approve of these proceedings which were too much like domiciliary visits under French law. The result had been that the Secretary of Tunku Alum had been prosecuted, not by the Attorney General, but by the legal adviser of the Maharaja of Johore, and that he had endeavoured to implicate Mr. Read and Mr. Sullivan, an Irish Member of Parliament, in waging war against the Maharaja of Johore. Mr. Read had, he thought, rather too hastily resigned in consequence his seat in the Legislative Council and his office of magistrate; and this had caused much regret in the Straits.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,in reply, said, that the information received at the Colonial Office was to the effect that the Colonial Government at Singapore had thought it necessary to take proceedings against the Secretary of Tunku Alum; and he thought that the domiciliary visit referred to by his noble Friend might have been connected with that proceeding. Upon the despatch containing that information being received his Predecessor at the Colonial Office telegraphed to the Governor of the Colony to send over particulars. Those particulars had not yet arrived; and, therefore, he could not give any information on the question. The same
  630
  despatch mentioned that disturbances had occurred; but no details had arrived, and they were waiting to receive them. With regard to Mr. Read, the Government highly appreciated the services of that gentleman, who was well known at the Straits Settlements and occupied an important position there, and he would be very glad to hear that Mr. Read found it possible to return to the service of the Government. He would take care, when the Papers were before him, if there was any ground for inquiry, that it should be made.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that what had fallen from the noble Earl with regard to Mr. Read would give much satisfaction. He must repeat that the money paid to Tunku Alum was not in any way British money.

RAILWAYS—CONTIGUOUS BRAKES.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  EARL DE LA WARRrose to call the attention of the House to the recent Return relative to railway brakes and to ask a Question. The noble Earl said, he was not going into the subject of railway accidents; but he wished to remind their Lordships that the Railway Accident Commission had made a Report after a prolonged inquiry, having entered into all the points connected with railway accidents and the appliances to prevent them. He alluded to that Commission chiefly with the view of reminding their Lordships that no legislative action had been taken upon the recommendations of the Commissioners. He was not prepared to say that he was in favour of any very direct legislation with regard to railway management. There were, however, circumstances in which interference might be necessary, as, for instance, when there was no such agreement between Companies as would enable them to carry out valuable improvements. He did not say that such occasions had arisen; but it was evident that they might occur. His object was to point out what appeared to him to be a very unsatisfactory want of agreement with regard to railway brakes. In 1878 an Act had been passed making it compulsory on the Companies to send in periodical returns of the number and character of the brakes in use on their respective lines. That Act had been

  631
  passed mainly in consequence of the statement of the Board of Trade that the want of brakes caused a very large proportion of railway accidents, and in order that the Board might constantly receive information as to the adoption of continuous brakes. Four Returns had now been made under the Act; and it appeared that, out of the 45,000 vehicles used at the present time for passenger traffic, only 2,700 had been fitted with brakes approved by the Board of Trade. Indeed, so far from adopting the recommendations of the authorities, several of the Companies—and among them the Great Northern Railway, the London and North-Western, and the South-Eastern Railway—were fitting their carriages with expensive brakes which, as they were not automatic, did not satisfy the requirements of the Board. There were about 70 Railway Companies in the country; and he thought it very desirable that some steps should be taken to check the extended use of inefficient brakes, and that some agreement should be come to between the Companies and the Board of Trade as to what the brake of the future should be. There were eight kinds of brakes that were recommended by the Board, and it could not be a difficult matter for the Companies to adopt one or other of them. He wished to know what steps the Government proposed to take to remedy the existing unsatisfactory state of things and to enforce the regulations of the Board of Trade?
  LORD SUDELEY,in reply, said, the Board of Trade were fully conscious of the importance of the subject; and, as far back as 1876, a Circular was issued to the Association of Railway Companies strongly urging them to take up the question. The Board of Trade felt it was most important that as little should be done as possible to interfere with the internal management of railways, so as to let the responsibility, as far as possible, rest with the railways, who were primarily liable. Six months after the first Circular was issued, another was sent, and again in January, 1877, a third communication was made to the Association. In April of that year the Chairman of the Association, in replying to one of those communications, had pointed out the difficult position of the Companies, and had stated that it did
  632
  not appear essential that any one form of brake should be adopted. The Board of Trade, not being satisfied with that reply, had then issued a Circular stating what, in their opinion, were the requirements necessary to render a brake adequate and efficient. An Act was passed in the next year requiring a Return to be made every half-year showing how far continuous brakes were extended, and the Return from which the noble Lord had spoken showed that in December, 1879, there were 452 engines with continuous brakes in accordance with the requirements of the Board of Trade, 2,300 carriages; other brakes, 622 engines and 8,999 carriages. The Board of Trade was as anxious as the noble Lord to see an extension of the brake system; but, unfortunately for that object, improvements were constantly being made which renders it important not to stereotype a particular form. In view of the very slow and unsatisfactory progress which appeared, from the Returns presented to Parliament, to have been made in the matter of continuous brakes, and the wide divergence of opinion as to the best kind of brake for adoption, but in which great experience had, no doubt, been gained, the Board of Trade would issue another Circular, and again urge upon the Companies the necessity to take such steps as might be necessary to secure the adoption of proper continuous brakes upon all lines of railway. If some such a course should be resolved on by the Companies, and a solution of the matter arrived at by the Companies undertaking that an efficient brake should be brought into use in a short time, the Board of Trade would greatly rejoice, deprecating, as they did, all interference in the management of railways which could be avoided. But should the Companies be unable to arrive at any conclusion, it might become necessary for the Board of Trade to recommend Parliament to enact such legislative measures as might be deemed necessary, in order that the safety of the public might be assured, as far as possible, by the adoption of a proper system of continuous brakes. They would watch the subject narrowly during the present year, and wait to see the result of the proposed Circular.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.