Sitting of 20 March 1883

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Heading—Metropolitan Street Improvements Act, 1877 (Amendment)*; Metropolitan Street Improvements*; Pewsey, Salisbury, and Southampton Railway*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Brokers' (City of London)* [127].
Second Reading—Land Drainage Provisional Order* [114]; Sea and Coast Fisheries Fund (Ireland) [116].
Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures—Bankruptcy [4].
Committee—Bankruptcy (No. 2) [82]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 2)*.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 129 and 39 he suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Thursday the 29th instant.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
QUESTIONS.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL AND BECHUANALAND.
  MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can assure the House that our recent allies the Chiefs Montsioa and Mankoroane are now able to obtain ammunition freely from the Cape Colony for defence against the Boers; whether he will proceed with the scheme for "making adequate provision for the interests of any Chiefs who have just claims upon us" without awaiting the obvious result of the Transvaal debate; and, whether he will be prepared to say after Easter, where he proposes to settle those Chiefs; what their provision will be, and what space he will allot to them; and, if their followers will be allowed to accompany them?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I am not able to give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks; but we are inquiring further by telegraph as to how the matter stands. The view taken up to this time by the Cape Government is, that where Native Chiefs are in conflict among themselves, whether with or without foreign allies, there is a state of war, and, observing a position of neutrality, the Cape Government allow no ammunition to be conveyed over the borders to the combatants; but that where peace is re-established between the Natives, and the only conflict is with

  927
  marauders coming from outside, the regulation ought not to be one-sided, and the embargo may be removed. As to the second part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government do not think that their inquiry into the practicability of the proposed provisions should be suspended to await the result of the debate. I am unable to give a pledge that the details asked for in the concluding part can be stated immediately after Easter, as they require careful deliberation, involving inquiries as to how many, if any, of these Chiefs desire to come over into British territory; which of them have any claim on the Imperial Government; how many followers they may have entitled to accompany them, and whether suitable locations can be found for them; and all this must be done in concert and communication with the Cape Government.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked, whether the information would be given to the House before the resumption of the debate after Easter. He thought it of great importance that they should be in possession of some information as to what was meant by the word "provision" in the Motion of the Prime Minister?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in reply, said, he could only promise that all the information which the Government could give would be communicated to the House before the resumption of the debate.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by the Chiefs "coming over?" Does he moan coming over, like Cetewayo, to this country?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The noble Lord must know what the expression moans. It means coming over the border of Bechuanaland into some portion of British territory.

  IRELAND—THE LAND COMMISSION COURT INQUIRY,
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is contemplated to make a large expenditure of many thousand pounds on the Land Commission Court in Merrion Square, to make it less unsuitable than it is at present for its purposes; and, whether, before sanctioning any such expenditure, the Government will have regard to the oft repeated re-
  928
  quests of suitors and their professional representatives that the Land Commission should hold its sittings at or near the Four Courts?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed by the Land Commission that no such expenditure is contemplated. A new building has lately been commenced at Upper Merrion Street; but it is a fireproof record room.
  MR. GIBSON: Is it true that it will cost between £6,000 and £10,000?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not known that. The answer I have received, as I said, states that the new building about to be commenced at 24, Upper Merrion Street, is a fireproof record office. There has been no alteration in the present Court since it was arranged in 1881, and no further expenditure is contemplated upon it.

  POST OFFICE—CONTRACTS—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. FRENCH-BREWSTERasked the Postmaster General, When the Papers relating to the Irish Mail Contract will be laid upon the Table; and, when the House will have an opportunity of discussing them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, it is the duty of the Treasury, and not of the Post Office, to lay these Papers upon the Table. The approved draft of the contract is now with the solicitor to the Railway Company. When it is finally settled and sealed, it will be laid upon the Table with the Papers and a Treasury Minute, and I should hope will be in the hands of hon. Members in the month of April. I may remind the House that the new contract will not take effect until the 1st of October next, and that it will have no force until approved by a Vote of the House.
  MR. GIBSON: But when will the House have an opportunity of discussing the crucial part of the question?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): So far as I am concerned, as soon as possible after the Papers are laid on the Table. But the contract, as I said, has no force at all until it has been approved by the House.
  MR. GIBSON: But are we to understand that the Papers will not be presented until the month of August, when no Members are here to discuss them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I will undertake to see that shall not take place.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Is the contract to be sealed before it is submitted to this House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, according to the rules in these matters the contract is between the Government and the Company, and is a complete contract. But it contains a proviso to the effect that it shall have no force until approved by the House. It must be sealed before being: submitted to the House; but if the House disapproves of it, of course the matter comes to an end.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: May I ask whether the contract was submitted to the Cabinet, or merely to the two Departments concerned?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I am not in a position to answer the Question, as I was not then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. DAWSON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the Government, during the interval which must elapse before the contract is finally closed, will leave the London and North Western Railway Company under the belief that the contract will certainly be given to them, and will allow them to go on building boats and making other arrangements for the service, when, possibly, at the eleventh hour, the House may refuse to ratify the contract with them? Will the Government say whether it is now their intention to ratify the contract, after the expressions of opinion from hon. Members on all sides of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I can give no answer to that Question. The contract has been made, and will now be sealed and laid upon the Table. I can say nothing more than that.

  EGYPT—THE RUMOURED NEW LOAN.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement that appears in a Router's telegram, that it is intended to issue a new Egyptian Loan for £5,000,000, £1,500,000 of which is for the cost of the British Army of Occupation, is correct; whether, if so, Her
  930
  Majesty's Government is either directly or indirectly responsible for the repayment of this money, or for the payment of interest upon it; whether, considering the estimate of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the cost to Egypt of a British Army of Occupation of 12,000 men would be at the rate of £600,000 per annum, and considering that the Army of Occupation only now consists of 6,000 men, and that they are probably to leave Egypt in a few months, it is necessary to borrow £1,500,000 for their maintenance; whether the Egyptian taxpayers have assented, through their representatives, to the issue of this new Loan; and, whether the additional charge upon the taxpayers is to be met by any reduction on the interest of existing Loans?
  MR. BUXTONasked the noble Lord, Whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Egyptian Government propose to raise a new Loan of £5,000,000 to pay the Indemnity Claims and the cost of the British Army of Occupation; whether this Loan will be an addition to the present debt of Egypt, amounting as it does to £97,000,000, with an annual payment of £4,000,000 on account of interest; whether such a proposal has the approval of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether this House will have any opportunity of debating and of passing its opinion on such a proposal?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, in reply to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Andover (Mr. Buxton), I may state that Her Majesty's Government have, as yet, received no definite proposals respecting the Loan which it is reported the Egyptian Government are about to issue, and consequently the question as to what advice they may be called upon to give has not as yet arisen. In regard to the period of the occupation of the country by British troops, I must refer my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton to the recent statement of the Prime Minister.
  In answer to Sir WILFRID LAWSON,
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the House would, no doubt, have full opportunities of discussing Egyptian affairs after Easter. He had that day presented all the Papers which were of

  931
  interest in the matter, including Lord Dufferin's despatch.
  Subsequently,
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated that there would be an opportunity after Easter to discuss Egyptian affairs. He desired to ask the Prime Minister when such opportunity would be given, seeing that additional light had been thrown upon Egyptian affairs by Lord Dufferin's latest despatch?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, if I understood the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) correctly, he said more and he said less than is ascribed to him. He said more, because I do not think he stated that there would be "an opportunity" for discussing Egyptian affairs after Easter. I think he said there would be "opportunities" for discussing them. In another sense he said less, because he did not promise that a specific day could be given by the Government for the purpose, and I am not aware that there is any time specially in view. That is a matter that will have to be considered according to the Rules of the House and the state of Public Business.

  ARMY—DRUNKENNESS.
  MR. CAINEasked the Judge Advocate General, The number of punishments for drunkenness, or offences arising out of drunkenness, in the British Army during the year 1882, and what proportion of these were in Egypt?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): Sir, the total number of men belonging to the British Army tried for drunkenness by general or district courts martial in all parts of the world in 1882 was 1,120, of whom 145 wore tried in Egypt. Punishments for drunkenness inflicted by regimental courts martial or commanding officers do not necessarily come before me, and for them I must refer my hon. Friend (Mr. Caine) to the list to be found in the general annual Return of the British Army which will be published in, due course. I cannot even approximately state the number of punishments awarded for "offences arising out of drunkenness," as no separate record is kept of such cases; but, no doubt, crimes directly or indirectly trace-
  932
  able to drunkenness, form, as in the case of civilians, a large proportion of the offences committed by soldiers. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of answering a question as to crime in Egypt, put to me the other night in the debate on the Army Estimates by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardineshire (Sir George Balfour). The total number of courts martial held in Egypt upon European soldiers of all arms, received at my Office up to this day, is as follows:—General courts martial, 10; summary courts martial, 5; district courts martial, 364. The latter total may, at first sight, seem large; but it must be remembered that that Return covers more than seven months, and that at one time we had a very large number of troops serving in the country. Many of these offences, too, though no doubt serious in the military point of view, were not of themselves of a very grave nature. On the other hand, trials for drunkenness have been unusually frequent, especially when the troops have not been actively employed. In fact, I find that the more the men have to do, and the less they have to drink, the better they, as a general rule, behave.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD (for Mr. JAMES HOWARD)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Tenants' Compensation Bill is likely to be in the hands of Members; and, whether it will be introduced upon the re-assembling of Parliament or soon after?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, the Bill was still under the careful consideration of the Government, and was in a very advanced stage. With regard to the date of its introduction, and to what he supposed he might call the effect of introducing the measure on the re-assembling of Parliament, he would venture to say one or two words, especially to those hon. Members who had not seen as much of the introduction of Bills, and who had not had as much occasion to watch their subsequent fate, perhaps, as he had. There seemed to be an opinion among certain hon. Members in the House that a real progress was made towards the settlement of a measure by the simple fact of the intro-

  933
  duction of a Bill. It was thought that after a Bill had been introduced it was in a more hopeful condition for passing. In some cases, that might be so; but he did not hesitate to say that, in regard to Bills of great importance, Bills involving questions of great difficulty and liable to excite differences of opinion, it was not wise to introduce them, unless they were prepared to go forward with them without delay. He was acquainted with cases in which, in his opinion, the introduction of Bills of great importance had been positively disadvantageous and injurious to the progress of the question. He wished to say, however, that he had not the least intention to convey, in this case, that he anticipated a long delay before the introduction of this Bill, for he did not; but he ventured to give that opinion, because he often saw that the belief was entertained that the introduction of a Bill upon any subject was a step of very great value and importance.

  MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS—THE DEPARTMENT OF THE LORD PRESIDENT.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in remodelling the Department of the Lord President, he will take into consideration the desirability of separating the actual Minister of Education in the House of Commons from that office; and of transferring to him the power of appointing the inspectors and other officers on whom the satisfactory working of the Education of the Country so greatly depends?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he did not quite understand, in the same sense as his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), the engagement that had been given by the Government. He did not think that the engagement given by the Government had at any time been to remodel the Department of the Lord President. The engagement of the Government had relation only to the provision made in that House for the affairs of Commerce and the affairs of Agriculture. So far as they undertook—as they did undoubtedly undertake—to consider the provision for agricultural affairs, it necessarily involved the duty of examining into the present arrangement of that part of the Office of the Lord President. But beyond that they
  934
  did not go. With respect to the question opened up by his hon. Friend, that was a very large question indeed, perhaps even larger than he was aware of. There was a comprehensive arrangement which had subsisted for 40 years with regard to Education, under which the Lord President of the Council had acted as the Chief, and under which the Vice President of the Council had acted immediately under him. And his Office had gradually become one of great importance indeed. Besides that there was a Committee of Council for Education, which might not have met very frequently of late years, but which had been by no means a Committee of mere form, like the Committee of Trade and the Committee of Local Government, but which for, he thought he might venture to say, something like 30 years had met from time to time to consider all the important questions of principle that arose on the subject of education. Therefore, his hon. Friend would see that this was a very largo subject, not included within any pledge of the Government; nor was he (Mr. Gladstone) prepared to say that, viewing what the Government had upon their hands, and what were the other calls on them, it was within their immediate intention to examine into this complicated matter.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL AND BECHUANALAND.
  MR. TOMLINSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government, before the debate on the Transvaal is resumed, to lay upon the Table of the House any Papers demonstrating the inability of the Transvaal Government to restrain those agencies which have been productive of crime and outrage in Bechuanaland, and have aggravated its disorder, or showing that Bechuanaland was in a state of disorder before those crimes and outrages took place?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that, with respect to this Question, there were no further Papers to lay on the Table in regard to the Transvaal. The subject in the first part of the Question, whether the Transvaal Government had or had not been able to restrain certain agencies on the frontier, was a matter of opinion without doubt; but it was a matter of opinion with reference to which they thought sufficient evidence was to be

  935
  drawn from the Papers on the Table. With regard to the second part of the Question, which related to the condition of Bechuanaland, as being a country subject to disorder, that was a matter which had been amply illustrated by the Papers which had been presented from time to time. There was rather a large literature on the matter; and, not to go back beyond recent years, he might supply the following references to the hon. Member:—C. 2,220—[Laughter]—he did not mean it was necessary to see so many as 2.220 papers, but that was the number of the Paper issued by command in 1879; also, C. 2,252 and 2,454 in the same year. In those Papers the hon. Member would, he thought, find much that bore on the matter.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— SEC. 31—APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will inquire into the practice of the Irish Board of Works in regard to loans to tenants under section thirty-one of the Land Act of 1881, and ascertain whether it has happened in numerous cases that the Board, after obtaining a fee of ten shillings from the applying tenant, and delaying for several months to deal with his application, have at length informed him that they would not proceed to take any steps in the case until the tenant forwarded to the office of the Board a receipt to prove that he had paid his rent up to the last customary gale day; if so, by virtue of what law or regulation this practice is adopted by the Board; and, having regard to the efforts made by many tenants to avail themselves of the Arrears Act by payment of the rent for 1881, the Treasury, in case they continue to insist on any evidence in regard to payment of rent as a condition precedent to allowing a loan to a tenant under section thirty-one, will consider whether it may not be expedient to regard the condition as satisfied on proof that the rent had been paid up to the last gale day of 1881?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, if the hon. Member will address these Questions to the Secretary to the Treasury after the Recess, say, on the 2nd or 3rd of April, he will be doubtless able to answer them.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would do so.

  MADAGASCAR—FRENCH CLAIMS RESPECTING THE NORTH-WEST COAST.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any further communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Prance with respect to Madagascar since the 9th of February; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of those communications, or lay them upon the Table of the House; whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to recognise, or have recognised, the French claims set forth in the following extract (Africa, No. 1, 1883), p. 42, Mons. Dúclere to Mons. Tissot:—
  "It is necessary to recall now that the rights claimed by France on the N.W. coast of Madagascar are certain, and are confirmed by regular treaties. If the conferences were not broken off on this point it was only because the Hova envoys engaged to concede to us the demands which we have the right and determination to enforce;"
  whether the Hova envoys acknowledged having made any such concessions as alluded to above; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to allow, without interference, the Madagascar Government to make concessions to the French Government of the nature alluded to above?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; no further communication has taken place. Her Majesty's Government have not been called upon to express any official opinion on the claims of the French Government referred to by my noble Friend, which, however, are new to them. The Hova Envoys are understood to deny having made the concessions referred to. Her Majesty's Government have, throughout the negotiations, shown their desire to promote a peaceful solution of the existing difficulties, and will continue to do so according as opportunity may arise. Beyond this, they are not prepared to go.

  LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND ART— PURCHASE OF THE ASHBURNHAM M.S.S.—THE IRISH M.S.S.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in the event of the purchase by the State of the Ashburnham Manuscripts, the Government will be disposed to consider the propriety of depositing in some public institution

  937
  in Dublin the Irish Manuscripts comprised in the Collection, so as to render them of easy and inexpensive access to students of Irish History and Literature, the great majority of such students being resident in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, the hon. Member only put his Notice on the Paper last night, and I could not very well answer it to-day. But I am under the impression that, according to the present law, all purchases, not being duplicates, made by the British Museum must be for and remain in the Museum building, and could not be disposed of or divided between the Museum and any other Institution. However, if the hon. Member will repeat his Question after Easter, I may be able to answer it more fully.
  MR. SEXTON: I will do so.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—COMPENSATION TO PRISON OFFICIALS.
  MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there would be any objection to including in the Return recently ordered of Memorials from Irish Prison Officials for compensation for extra duties, Copies of all Correspondence on the subject between the Irish Prisons Board and the Irish Government and the Treasury?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am afraid, I cannot under take to add the Correspondence generally to the Return which has been ordered. It is not customary to lay before Parliament inter-departmental Correspondence, which is usually of a privileged character.

  STATE OF IRELAND—COUNTY SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed that, from the Return of Agrarian Outrages reported to the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary last month, it appears that no such offence, either against the person, against property, or against the public peace, was committed during the month in any part of the county Sligo; and, whether the Irish Government during the Recess will consider the removal from the county of any extra police
  938
  which may be quartered there, so as to relieve the ratepayers of the county from any special burden imposed on them "by reason of the existence or apprehension of crime and outrage?"
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have observed the gratifying circumstance referred to; but I am afraid it will be slightly modified by the Return for this month. I will make inquiry with the view of ascertaining to what extent the absence of agrarian crime may be considered due to the presence of the extra police, and whether the latter can to any extent be removed with safety to the public peace. It must be remembered, that under the Prevention of Crimes Act, districts may be proclaimed as requiring extra police on account of the apprehension of outrage, and it appears by the latest reports that "Boycotting" still exists in the only district in Sligo which is so proclaimed.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND)— SALARIES OF TEACHERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, considering complaints made by teachers of Irish National Schools, that the salaries payable to them on the 12th of January last have remained unpaid until the present month, steps will be taken to cause the Board of National Education to pay the teachers their salaries, according to regulation, immediately after the quarter days, 12th. January, 12th April, 12th July, and Pith October, and thus save a class of public officials from needless inconvenience and anxiety?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Commissioners of National Education inform me that the salaries of the teachers and monitors of National schools—some 16,000 to 17,000 in number—are punctually paid on each succeeding quarter-day—namely, 12th of January, 12th of April, 12th of July, and 12th of October. If, upon that day, no payment is made in any particular case or cases, it is because of some irregularity in the return of the manager, or some breach of rule involving inquiry and consideration. That is the only answer I can give; but if the hon. Member has any special case in view, perhaps he will call attention I to it.

  POST OFFICE—CONTRACTS—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. CARINGTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether a very large sum of money would be saved to the tax payers of the United Kingdom by the acceptance of the Tender of the London and North Western Railway to convey the Mails between England and Ireland, and also if the time occupied by the journey between London and Dublin would be considerably shortened?
  MR. FAWCETT, in reply, said, that he could only say that he had nothing to add to the answer he gave to the same Question on the previous day of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson).

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— THE REBUILDING OF ANGLER'S GARDENS, ISLINGTON.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If there is any immediate prospect of rebuilding human habitations in and around the space, for more than a year left wholly vacant on the south side of Essex Road, Islington, known as Angler's Gardens?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, I beg to inform my hon. Friend that the Board was only in a position to clear the land referred to in August, 1882; and a modification of the scheme having been found desirable, the consent of the Secretary of State for the Home Department was applied for. This was obtained on the 6th instant; and the land will now very shortly be submitted for sale by public auction, with a view to the erection of improved dwellings for the labouring classes.

  LAW AND POLICE—REPORTED ATTACK ON LADY FLORENCE DIXIE.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the police have come to any definite conclusion as to the alleged murderous attack on a lady near Windsor, on Saturday the 17th instant; and, whether, considering the gravity of the comments on the subject by the Press, Her Majesty's Government intend to institute a public inquiry into the circumstances of the case?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, the matter was at present under careful and constant inquiry; but he was not in a position to make any statement on the subject. The matter was too recent, and being under the regular course of investigation by the police authorities, there was no reason whatever for interfering with that investigation.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he does not think it would be desirable to offer a reward—[Laughter]—to any person who comes forward with evidence to show who is the guilty party in this transaction? [Renewed laughter.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think I may ask the House to trust the Department to take such measures as they may think requisite in the case.

  IRELAND—MAINTENANCE OF HARMLESS LUNATICS AND IDIOTS.
  MR. MOLLOY: I wish to ask a Question of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether the Government intend to make provision for the maintenance of harmless lunatics and idiots in Ireland in establishments other than the union workhouses; and, if so, how soon?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, the subject was one which had engaged the attention of the Irish Executive, who had come to a pretty strong opinion on the matter. The Bills which the Government had ready, and which would be laid before the House at the first opportunity there was of passing them, were of a very important nature, and were, to a great extent, of an administrative character. He was sorry to say the present state of Irish Business was much worse than other Business. It could only be got through, in any reasonable time, by the assistance of those hon. Members who did not agree with the principles of Government measures. At that moment, the only Irish Bill of the Government before the House, which was not a Bill with the principles of which any hon. Member from Ireland quarrelled, and which was to benefit a very large part of Ireland, had been blocked on two occasions by an hon. Member from that country, who he (Mr.

  941
  Trevelyan) did not understand had any quarrel with it.
  MR. DAWSONwished to know, whether the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the objections of the hon. Member referred to were of a very valid nature?

  NAVY—H.M.S. "VALOROUS."
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is the case that H.M.S. "Valorous" was sent from Plymouth to Kingstown on or about 8th instant for the purpose of conveying convicts to Holyhead; whether she left Kingstown for Holyhead on the 12th with a batch of 23 convicts, returned to Kingstown on 13th and left again on 15th with a similar batch; also, if he will state whether her duties on this particular service are now ended, and what sufficient reasons existed for departure from the usual practice of sending convicts by the ordinary passenger boats, and what has been the cost to the Country of this expedition?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I understand that the facts are generally as stated in the hon. Member's Question. The Valorous was employed upon this service in consequence of a request for such a vessel from the Irish Government. I have not been able, in the course of this morning, to ascertain definitely the cost involved, which will be chiefly that of the coal consumed.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE DEBATE ON THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to a matter of Public Business. When the Transvaal debate was adjourned last Friday, a question was put to the Prime Minister as to the day the adjournment should be fixed for, and it was decided that it should be April 3. Yet last night, or rather this morning, between 2 and 3 o'clock, in the absence of any Notice, and in the absence of those hon. Gentlemen who were interested in the Business to take place on Friday, April 6, a Motion was made from the Treasury Bench, and carried, that the adjournment of the debate should take place until April 6, the effect of which had been to displace the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr.
  942
  Rylands) with reference to the National Expenditure. Under these circumstances, he ventured to ask the Prime Minister, why, after he had given Notice to the House that the Government would propose that the Transvaal debate should be adjourned till Tuesday, April 3, the Government, in the absence of the Prime Minister, and without Notice, proposed that that debate should be adjourned till April 6, and whether, having regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley, that course met with the right hon. Gentleman's approval?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I can on no account exempt myself from responsibility with respect to the change of day, effected by a Motion made at a late hour last night, from the Tuesday to the Friday; but I will give an explanation to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). It is quite true that I named the first Tuesday after the Recess, because we were anxious that the Transvaal debate should be resumed on the earliest day that could properly be taken for it. But I then learnt, in such a manner that I could not doubt the authenticity of the information, that there was great objection indeed to going on with it on Tuesday. There is this, too, to be said with regard to taking up the debate again at a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, that when the House resumes at 9 o'clock, there is, by a common understanding, no special obligation on the Government to keep a House, and it is difficult for the Government to come under such an obligation. If they did, they would be obliged to solicit hon. Gentlemen to attend three nights a-week for the keeping of a House, and that would be to impose too considerable a strain upon hon. Members. I suppose that will be accepted as a reason; but, at any rate, it was for what we believed to be the general convenience of the House that I agreed that this change should be made. I admit the point of my hon. Friend's Question, and I must assure him that it did not escape attention; but I cannot think really that he will find it necessary to conclude that the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) will suffer in consequence. The House will meet at 9 o'clock, and, at any rate, from that hour to 1 o'clock, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley and those who desire to dis-

  943
  cuss that exceedingly important Motion, will have their time secured, because we shall make every effort to secure their having a House for the purpose. The hon. Member knows the position in which we stand. There are some things the Government can do; but we cannot manufacture time. We cannot ask the House to give Monday or Thursday evenings for the purpose of continuing that debate. Short of that, our desire is to make arrangements which will be most convenient for the House; and I think, upon the whole, the arrangement now proposed may be thought less inconvenient than the former one.

  SCOTLAND—THE CROFTERS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION—UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION OF THE NAMES OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. ANDERSON: I wish to be allowed to ask the Lord Advocate a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, Whether his attention has been called to the circumstance that The Scotsman newspaper of Saturday last not only announced the names of the Royal Commissioners on the Crofter question, but stated also that these names would be announced to the House on Monday? I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if it is altogether a respectful thing to the House that a newspaper should be allowed to announce this, and to say that the House will get it by-and-bye on a certain day? I would also like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he cannot make some arrangement in his Office by which official secrets of that kind shall he prevented from being announced by a newspaper before they are announced to Members in the ordinary way?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I did observe that announcement; but I have no idea whence the information was derived. I am not aware of it.
  MR. ANDERSON: I do not think the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend to my Question is quite sufficient. I would like to know if he will endeavour to find out how the information was procured; and, if he will take steps to prevent such official secrets leaking out from his Office in future?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I will endeavour to do so.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When he will make his Financial Statement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): At this moment I am not certain.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Because I think the matter has some bearing on the arrangement made for the 6th and the day following, I wish to ask, whether it is the intention of the Government that the Financial Statement should be made on the 5th?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I hope to be able to say, before the House adjourns this evening, on what day it will be most convenient to make the Financial Statement. I could not pledge myself at this moment.
  Subsequently,
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can now state when he will be in a position to introduce the Budget?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I hope to make the Financial Statement on Thursday, the 5th of April.

  BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will have a Paper prepared, specifying the alterations which the Ballot Act Continuance Bill proposes to make in the existing law, in the same way as has been done in the case of the Bankruptcy Bill and others?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will confer with the hon. Member on the subject. It seems to me the Bill can only be read with one Act—namely, the Ballot Act.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—THE EASTER RECESS.
    SPAIN—EXPULSION OF CERTAIN CUBAN REFUGEES FROM GIBRALTAR.

      MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to move that this House at its rising do

      945
      adjourn till Thursday, the 29th of March. I wish, upon this Motion, to refer to that which has reached me, not by any Notice upon the Paper, but from what I think sufficient information, that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to raise a question upon this Motion, on what is called the question of the Cuban refugees. Until last night, as far as I am concerned, and, indeed, until this morning, I was perfectly prepared to accept that discussion, and to interpose no obstacle to its coming on. Yesterday evening, however, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) received a telegram from Madrid, and I saw that telegram this morning, which impressed both of us with the belief that it would not be politic, with regard to the ends which the Government has in view, and which I believe to be the same as those of the right hon. Gentleman, that that discussion should take place at the present time. The nature of that telegram is such as to give us, I will not say a certainty, but, undoubtedly, a prospect of a settlement of the matter approaching to the settlement that we have desired. I cannot, of course, control the action of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who will exercise, as he is entitled to do, his own independent judgment on the subject; but it is the judgment of my noble Friend, and certainly it is also my own judgment, that the prospects of adjusting the difficulty would be injured, and not promoted, by a discussion of the subject at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, feel that, having that information, it was my duty to state it to the House.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Thursday, the 29th of March."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I have listened with attention to the statement of the Prime Minister, and I should be very sorry indeed to do anything, or take any course, at all calculated to defeat the object which we all have in view. But this is a very serious question; and I shall ask the Prime Minister, before deciding on what course I ought to take, whether, in case I do not bring the subject up now, he will give me an oppor-
      946
      tunity of discussing it afterwards, in case the negotiations do not result in the favourable issue which he has shadowed forth? The statement of the Prime Minister has taken me somewhat by surprise, because I was here until a quarter to 3 this morning, and no telegram of any kind was put into my hands. [Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE dissented]. Perhaps the noble Lord will pardon me for a moment—no telegram was shown me which would lead me to any conclusion at all like that indicated by the Prime Minister; and if the telegram which was shown me was really the only thing the Government had to satisfy—[Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is not the same.] In that case my observation falls to the ground. In the telegram which I saw there was nothing to lead me to change the course which I am ready to take. But, before deciding that matter, I must, as I before observed, ask the Prime Minister whether he will give me a subsequent opportunity of raising the question in case the objects in view are not attained? I think that I ought to add that, in common courtesy, I ought to have been allowed to see the telegram before the Prime Minister made the announcement.
      LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that it had been his desire to show the telegram, upon which the conclusion of the Prime Minister was based, to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Assheton Cross); but he was unable to see him, for he was not in the House at the time the telegram arrived. He had not, however, been able to keep the telegram the whole evening, and he communicated to the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as he did see him, the same request as that now made by the Prime Minister, and also the subject of the telegram. When he spoke to the Prime Minister yesterday, he simply expressed his own individual opinion, as he had had no opportunity of communicating with the Members of the Government.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he hoped that his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire would seriously consider before he decided to accede to the request of the Prime Minister not to bring on his Motion. He did not suppose such a request had ever before been made. The question of the Cuban refugees was one of great import-

      947
      ance, and, though it had been before the House since last October, it was always with the greatest difficulty that they could obtain any information in regard to it from the Government. At last his right hon. Friend had found an opportunity, and there were odds against his finding it again; and the Prime Minister had asked him not to bring on his Motion. Why? Because a telegram had arrived from Madrid. The right hon. Gentleman, however, gave no information to the House, and did not inform them what the policy of the Government was. He therefore hoped his right hon. Friend would be careful not to lose the opportunity he now possessed of calling attention to the matter. There were many matters in connection with this question which, from the first, had been very unsatisfactory, and there were also many hon. Members on his side of the House who considered that the tone of the Government and of Lord Granville towards the Spanish Government had, from the first, been as weak and cringing as it possibly could be, and differed widely from that which had been adopted by former Foreign Ministers; whereas, if he had adopted a firmer tone, the probability was the refugees would now be at liberty. He considered that if the tone of Lord Granville now had been the tone adopted from the first, these unfortunate men would have been given up long ago. Those men had been grossly ill-treated by the Spanish Government, and this country had suffered a tremendous disgrace and shame. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any information from the Government as to what their policy was, or as to what the Spanish Government intended to do, he did not think his right hon. Friend ought to withdraw his Motion.
      MR. GLADSTONE: I hope the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) will permit me to observe that the question is not now whether the policy of the Government, or of Lord Granville, has been of a weak and cringing tone. The question now raised is, whether there is any possibility or probability of satisfactorily dealing with this matter. If there be, what I have said will not in the least degree justify a weak and cringing policy on the part of the Government; but it is a good reason for a separate
      948
      consideration of two matters, which are in their nature distinct. It would be entirely out of place for me now to enter upon a vindication of the policy of the Government. I have no fault to find with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) as regards his answer to my appeal. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman not seeing the telegram, I was neither so virtuous nor so vigorous as the right hon. Gentleman and my noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice); for whereas they did not leave the House till 3 o'clock, I had left at a quarter-past 2, and, owing to that circumstance, I did not see the telegram. But since seeing it, I have both formed my own opinion and ascertained the opinion of Lord Granville and the Government. I think it would be a mistake wore we to lay before the House, distinctly and in detail, any of the grounds upon which the opinion of the Government has been formed. That opinion is really a matter for the responsibility of the Government, and it is for the right hon. Gentleman to consider what degree of weight he shall attach to it. That is his part; we have done ours. The right hon. Gentleman says this is his opportunity, and he wishes to have some assurance from us as to the recurrence of that opportunity. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will co-operate with us, and will not think it too much if we ask that he should take his chance of obtaining an independent opportunity. But if the right hon. Gentleman fails in obtaining an independent opportunity, and fails in obtaining it in a short time, and still finds occasion to raise the question, undoubtedly it will be our duty to assist him in obtaining that opportuinty.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I will to-day endeavour to obtain a place upon the Paper; and, as I have the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that I shall have an opportunity of bringing on the question, I do not feel justified, after his statement, in carrying the matter further.
      Subsequently,
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, having been unable to secure a place for his Motion relating to the Cuban refugees, he had put down the Motion for Friday, the 30th of March, on going into Committee of Supply, and

      949
      he would then press the Prime Minister for a day for the discussion of the Motion.

      SCOTLAND—THE CROFTERS—DESTITUTION IN THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
      DR. CAMERON, in rising to call attention to the prevailing distress among the crofters and cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, said, he was naturally very much averse to trespassing on the House at that moment; but he had, he regretted to say, received accounts regarding the state of destitution in Scotland of so deplorable a character that he felt he would not be doing his duty if he allowed the Motion for adjournment to pass without calling attention to the question. Only about an hour ago he had received the following telegram from Mr. J. Nicol, City Chamberlain, Glasgow, the Secretary to the Committee who were devoting themselves to the relief of this destitution—
      "Parish minister, Lochinver, Sutherland, reports death of a man on 16th from starvation, and says we shall soon have more deaths if we get no help. This is the first application from Lochinver to Glasgow Committee. The Lord Provost has directed me to telegraph clergymen to succour the famishing."
      This matter had greatly exercised the minds of a number of benevolent people in Scotland, who had been endeavouring to deal with it, and only the other day he had received a packet of letters from all parts of Scotland, addressed to the Glasgow Relief Committee, calling attention to the terrible nature of the destitution that existed, and begging for assistance. He would not have troubled the House with these, but that a good deal of incredulity had been expressed as to the extremity and extent of the destitution. On March 12, the Rev. J. Finlayson, Free Church Manse, Cohjaci, by Ullapool, wrote to Mr. James Nicol—
      "After careful inquiry, I find that there are no fewer than 45 families in need of immediate relief for food. Some of these families are ten and eight in number, but others as few as three or four. Many of them have no workers to fish, should fish he got, which it is not. I hope your committee will kindly send us some aid. An average of 20 s. or 30 s. each family would he a great help. We cannot get anything of what was given to Ullapool; it is all too little for the destitute there itself. There are besides 125 families needing seed, corn, and potatoes. They are promised a little help from the Duke of Sutherland in the way of giving work for a
      950
      short time in extending roads in the district, but the most necessitous cannot in the least be benefited by that, as they have no workers. Besides, many of them may starve before anything can be done by the Duke, and it is questionable whether he will give any help."
      Here was another letter from Mr. J. M'Millan, Free Church minister, Ullapool, who wrote on March 14—
      "The committee estimate that the least we would require, at our present rate even, is £20 per week for near three months, till their land is tilled and they get off to the fishing. They must be supported during the time they are engaged in planting and sowing their fields, or starvation must be the result. We had no conception that the people were so needy until we actually came face to face with their condition."
      In another letter, on the 1st of March, the same gentleman said—
      "As the result of the conference which took place, it was discovered that about 50 families were suffering from want at the present moment, and needed immediate relief, and that in a few weeks or months more it might be up to hundreds unless something were done to avert and meet it."
      On the 10th of March, Mr. R. Mackenlar, Chairman of the School Board of Harris, wrote to Mr. James Nicol—
      "If Dr. Cameron's Seeds Bill does not pass I look with great alarm to the future. Next year, and in all probability many more years, must be equally trying to the great majority of our people; £30 a-week would only give 2½ stones of meal (5s. worth) to each of 120 families. I am confident this is under what the last few days' experience warrants me to give."
      The Rev. Donald Maclean, Established Church Manse, Harris, wrote—
      "I beg to bring to your notice the case of about 20 families in my parish and neighbourhood who are actually in a state of great starvation."
      He had also a letter which he had received from Rev. A. Davidson, Free Manse, Harris, on the 9th of March, who wrote—
      "I have had occasion lately to be extensively among my people, which afforded me an opportunity of knowing their state. Some said the destitution was not greater in 1846, the year of the potato famine, than in this year. All parties agree that potato seed would be the best help that could be sent to the people. At present, there are 200 or 220 families in my district that would require help. I understand that the grain crop, oats and barley, was as much a failure with many of them as the potatoes were. What could be done for grain seeds I do not know, and I am painfully informed that there are some families quite destitute and without food. The Earl of Dunmore has given some work at the Home

      951
      Farm to those who were in arrear of rent, very useful in itself, but confined to a certain class, and far from meeting a want that I may say extended to all parties."
      From Skye worst accounts come. A local committee had been formed to deal with the destitution, and they reported that there were 785 families in a state of very great distress, which was likely to rapidly increase, although many of the landlords had attempted to deal with it. Mr. Macdonald, the agent of some of the principal landlords in the Island, and Secretary to the Skye Destitution Committee, Portree, wrote on March 12—
      "The proprietors, I can vouch, are doing their very utmost, but local resources are quite inadequate, and a great part of the ground in Skye will be left unsown this year."
      The Rev. D. Mackinnon, minister of Strath, Chairman of the Portree Destitution Meeting, wrote on March 6—
      "The people are without exception almost entirely without seed corn and potatoes, and unless these can be supplied in some way next year will find them in a worse position than they are now. I believe if a loan could be had to buy seed corn and potatoes, to sell to the people, nine-tenths of them would repay the money before the end of the summer. I believe it would take £600 at the very least to supply my own parishioners, and I feel confident that not £5 of the money would be lost."
      Mr. MacDonald, Free Church Manse, Kilmuir, on the 8th of March, told a similar story—
      "The civil parish has a population of over 2,500–460 families in all. Of that number 150 families are in extreme destitution, now needing immediate relief. Many of our crofters who tried to reserve some little corn for seed are now obliged to use that seed in order to keep their families alive. This will not last long, and I quite expect that in a few weeks half of the families in this parish will be without food, without any way of procuring food, and without seed to put into the ground, unless largo supplies shall come to them from without."
      From Lewis the reports were still worse. Mr. Mackay, Chamberlain, the agent for the entire Island, so far back as January, published an appeal to the country. A local relief committee was started, and Mr. Mackay and a banker from Storno-way, went as a deputation to Glasgow and Edinburgh to collect subscriptions, and the consequence of their visit was the formation of the local relief committees in those cities. Mr. Mackay asserted that the state of matters threatened to become worse than in 1846.
      952
      His last letter, dated March 8, to the Glasgow Committee, stated that there were upwards of 12,000 persons above the pauper class in a state of great destitution in Lewis, and in the next few months they were likely to be augmented by 5,000 more. A clergyman, the Rev. Angus Maclver, Uig, Stornoway, wrote on the 9th March to the Lord Provost of Glasgow—
      "My parish is the extreme western part of the island, some parts of it upwards of 40 miles from Stornoway, where the people have been supplied with meal hitherto. I gave lines to some 13 or 14 heads of families lately. Many of them, I believe, were at the time facing starvation. Some 12 of them trudged away 30 miles to Stornoway to get food for their families. They left on Monday morning, and only returned on Friday morning, without getting anything for themselves or their families, walking in the streets of Stornoway the most of the time with very little food. There were only two out of the 14 who had got any supplies before."
      Mr. W. Mackay wrote to Mr. Nicol, on March 1—
      "It may be said that 12,310 above the pauper class are in want, and this number will be increased by 5,000 before the next harvest. At a meeting of the Stornoway Destitution Committee, held on Tuesday last, it was found that after providing for the payment of 196 tons of potatoes purchased for seed, our funds were reduced to £570, which will almost be all exhausted by the end of next week."
      Here was another appeal from the Island of Boveray, North Uist—
      "We, the undersigned, and residing here, have formed ourselves into a committee on behalf of 12 very destitute families on the island. They are chiefly cottars, and have lived hitherto partly by fishing and partly by the produce of some patches of land kindly given them by the crofters; but owing to the failure of potatoes and loss of corn crop by the heavy gale of 1st October last, and owing to the coast being so wild that they cannot begin the fishing sooner than April, some of them are now without food for themselves and families, without credit, and without seed of any kind to sow their lands. There are 10 more families who will be short of seed."
      When he (Dr. Cameron) moved in the matter before, and endeavoured to obtain the sanction of the House to a Bill allowing advances to be made to these destitute people for the purchase of seed, he was told that there would be no necessity for seed, at all events, in Sutherlandshire, because the Duke would see that nothing went wrong there. He was not going to blame the Duke of Sutherland in the smallest degree, be-

      953
      cause it was not to be expected that a private proprietor could do everything that was necessary in the state of things now existing in the country. As a matter of fact, Mr. Alexander Fraser, Sub-Convener of the Edinburgh Committee, writing fron Grosvenor Crescent, Edinburgh, to Mr. Nichol, on the 10thMarch, sida—
      "As requested by the committee, last Wednesday I called upon Mr. MacDonald, and ascertained from him that the Duke of Sutherland declined to supply the crofters on his property with seed potatoes either on credit, or at a reduced price for what they could pay."
      He thought it necessary to give the House his authority for what he said, and that must be his excuse for the iteration of these details. The next extract he had was from the Rev. Norman N. Mackay, Convener of the General Committee for the relief of destitution in Asseynt and Stoer, Lochniver, who, on the 8th March, wrote—
      "The Duke of Sutherland is the proprietor of Stoer and Asseynt, and he his unlikely to do anything as to seed for any excepting crofters who have the prospect of being able to pay him at the next rent time. I sent a petition from some of the crofters to His Grace three weeks ago, beseeching him to give them seed on credit, and supported the prayer of the petition by a letter from myself. On the 20th February, the factor, to whom I had also written, wrote saying—'The Duke is unwilling to give seed or meal, but the ground officer will tell the people that they can get work.' The ground officer last week informed the people that they could now get work at the Buckie Railway, and took a list of all the tenants who wished him to supply them with seed and the quantity required, warning them that if the Duke would give seed, it must be paid for with next rent, the price to be very high, potatoes not less than 10s. the barrel. To go to Buckie at present would be to leave their ground untilled this year, as they could not make their expenses before the spring work begins. No cottars were put on the ground officer's list, and the poorest of the crofters asked, some for no seed, and others for very little, fearing that they would be unable to pay at rent time, and would thus be liable to be deprived of their land. The families mentioned at the beginning of this statement are also the poorest of the crofters, who asked ground officer for less seed than they needed or none at all, knowing they could not pay him, and the cottars who got bits of land from the crofters to plant potatoes in. As to food, I am sorry to say we had to add 10 yesterday to the list we made a month ago of those likely to be in want of food. I hope a month will pass before we require to supply much food; but to be safe we would need to have the power."
      Here was something further about Sutherland. This was an extract from
      954
      a letter from Mr. James Macdonald, of Edinburgh, to Mr. Alexander Fraser—
      "It would be necessary to sell at least £450 worth of seed potatoes to the crofters in the parishes of Durness, Tongue, and Farr, on the North Coast of Sutherland, and a like quantity would be required for Assynt and Eddrachilles, on the West Coast. If your committee could grant £250, Mr. Mackay thinks the quantity named might be purchased at once, and re-sold to the people for cash at 25 per cent below cost. Local committees would be formed, who would decide the rates at which the different crofters were to pay. Some might be able to pay full cost, while others could not do more than pay 50 per cent."
      His practical reason for bringing this matter before the House was very plain. He might mention that when, in the beginning of last month, he brought forward his proposal to make advances to the crofters for the purpose of purchasing seed, the first difficulty he encountered was that the Government had no official information on a point which was a matter of public notoriety in Scotland. He at once communicated with the Lord Provost of Glasgow, who was Chairman of the Glasgow Belief Committee, and an ex-officio member of the Board of Supervision, and the result was that he and the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, who was also an ex-officio member of the Board, went to the next meeting of the Board, and urged that steps should be taken to obtain information not merely as to the number of paupers, but of persons above the pauper class who were in a state of destitution. This appeared to be quite a novel proposal to the Board of Supervision. But he (Dr. Cameron) did not find fault with the Board, because it consisted principally of legal gentlemen, who had to decide disputes on legal points, and they could not be blamed if, adhering strictly to their functions, they had not got this information. The Lord Provosts of Glasgow and Edinburgh, though ex-officio members of the Board, almost never attended the meetings; but, on this occasion, they attended and pointed out that it would not look well to the country if it came out that the Board stuck so slavishly to the letter of its duties that it would not inquire into this matter. As a result of the remonstrances of these gentlemen, the Board agreed to consult the Government as to whether they might not ask their Inspectors to send in Reports on the subject. The Government, of course, agreed to that, and he believed that,

      955
      without waiting for any request, they had sent instructions for Reports to be furnished by the Inspectors. As he had said, he did not want to find fault with the Board of Supervision; but he mentioned the matter to demonstrate that the Government must not rely upon the Board for the collection of information at such a critical period. He was not going to say what should be done; but he thought in the case of Scotland, and in the face of such destitution actually merging on famine, and causing death by starvation, the Government should take some exceptional means at once for inquiring and informing themselves on the spot as to what was going on, and not rely on reports from the Board of Supervision upon a subject which was not strictly within its province. The only other suggestion he had to make was that the Government should consider their responsibility in this crisis in the case of Scotland to be precisely what it would be in the ease of any other part of the Kingdom. They should send down to the distressed districts and ascertain what the state of matters was, and do whatever might be necessary to avert starvation, and to stop the threatened increase of destitution; and he was sure that if they should somewhat exceed the literal interpretation of their powers, if they came to the House, the House would not hesitate to indemnify them on account of any steps they might feel themselves called upon to take.
      MR. WHITBREADsaid, that, though he did not, in the circumstances, altogether quarrel with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) for bringing the question under the notice of the House, he must point out that it was extremely inconvenient, not with regard to Public Business only, but because it had launched upon them an extraordinary budget of reports, which no one had any time or opportunity to verify, or even to examine. He knew that the hon. Member was engaged, with others, in a very merciful effort to relieve distress in the Highlands of Scotland; but he was surprised and pained at hearing him announce that a death from starvation had occurred in the parish of Lochinver, in Sutherland. Where the hon. Member for Glasgow got that information from he could not say; but he understood that he got it from the Rev. Mr. Mackay.
      DR. CAMERON: The information came to me within the last hour. It is from the parish minister of Lochinver, Sutherlandshire, and is as follows:—
      "Reports death of man on 16th from starvation, and says we shall soon have more deaths, if we get no help. This is the first application from Lochinver to Glasgow Committee. The Lord Provost has directed me to telegraph to succour the famishing. Kindly inform the Lord Mayor that the Lord Provost thanks him for opening a fund."
      MR. WHITBREADsaid, there was no doubt that the information emanated from Mr. Mackay. Only last week he (Mr. Whitbread) received a letter from Mr. Mackay, giving an account of the destitution in the parish of Lochinver. It seemed to him (Mr. Whitbread) that Mr. Mackay, and those acting with him, were taking the most prudent, active, and energetic stops to cope with the distress. It was a very large parish of 120,000 acres, and Mr. Mackay had established committees in several different parts of the parish, and the result of the information so collected he gave to him in that letter. He said there were 300 crofters; of these, 100 were able to pay for their seed, 150 were able to obtain seed on credit, and 50 were unable either to pay or get it on credit. The steps which the Duke of Sutherland had taken were far beyond those which the hon. Member seemed to imagine. The Duke had tried, first, to find work on the railway for those who could go to it; and, besides that, he had offered to supply on credit, to all crofters who could take it, seed at a price which was not at all unreasonable for good seed. There was nothing to show, or to lead anyone to suppose for a moment, that the Duke wished to charge the crofters more for the seed than it had cost him.
      DR. CAMERONsaid, what he read was that the Sub-Convener of the Edinburgh Committee stated that the Duke of Sutherland declined to supply seed potatoes, either on credit or at a reduced price.
      MR. WHITBREADreplied, that his information came direct from the spot—from Mr. Mackay. He had known that gentleman for many years, and thought he was to be relied upon in every way as being as good an adviser on such a matter as anyone could have; and in his letter he distinctly stated that the Duke of Sutherland did offer seed on credit to all who would have it, and that the only

      957
      persons who could not obtain it were the 50 poor crofters already alluded to as being too poor to burden themselves with debt. The parish of Lochinver was one of the most thickly populated parishes in Sutherland, and, as far as he knew of it, he did not think the distress was beyond what could be coped with by private enterprise, and with the assistance so generously given by the society which the hon. Member for Glasgow was connected with. It did not seem to him to be of such magnitude as to call strongly for the interposition of that House. He believed that if the people would set about to meet that distress, as they would in other parts of the world, the amount required was not very great; and he might say further that the letters he received from Lochinver last week said there were only two families actually in want of food, and did not give him the least idea that there was anything like actual starvation existing.
      MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he believed that the distress was spread over a much wider area than the parts referred to by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He did not understand the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to make a charge against anyone of neglecting these poor people; but he simply desired to call the special attention of the Government to the extent of the distress, and to call upon the Government to make special effort to relieve that distress. He (Mr. Macfarlane) hoped, this subject having been brought before the authorities, that steps would be taken to ascertain the facts as to the amount of distress, and relieve that distress. There was one other subject which he wished to bring before the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and that had reference to the Royal Commission which was announced yesterday. He (Mr. Macfarlane) had received telegrams expressing something not far short of consternation at the constitution of that Commission. Neither he, nor any of those who communicated with him, wished to say a word against any of the Gentlemen appointed on the Commission, except this, that they did not fairly represent the classes who were most deeply interested in this question. It was certainly right and proper that a certain number of landlords should represent their own interests on that Com-
      958
      mission; but they should also have Gentlemen upon it in whom there was confidence, and who were thoroughly impartial. He had intended to ballot today for the opportunity of bringing forward a Motion, praying Her Majesty to appoint one or two additional Commissioners, specially to represent the crofter class. What he feared was, that the result of the labours of the Commission as appointed would be unsatisfactory to those most deeply concerned. It would not be satisfactory to the landlords, if the Commission was discredited in advance; and if the people were impressed, however wrongly, with the opinion that it would not fairly go into the question, the object of the Commission would not be obtained. He wanted to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if it was too late to add even one special representative of the crofter class, to give these people the assurance that their case would be thoroughly investigated from their own point of view. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not make that addition, he (Mr. Macfarlane) was certain the result of the work of the Commission would be a fiasco. Let the right hon. Gentleman put on any partizan landlord that he liked; but, at the same time, let him put on a partizan from the other side to counteract him. He regretted that the name of Mr. Mackenzie, of Inverness, who was a great authority on this subject, had not been put on the Commission, as he would have given complete confidence to the class for whom he (Mr. Macfarlane) spoke.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he very much regretted that the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Macfarlane), at the commencement of a Commission which was intended to satisfy all Parties, had attempted to discredit that Commission. He thought the remarks which the hon. Gentleman had made were entirely without foundation. Nobody could have taken greater pains than he (Sir William Harcourt) had to form that Commission of impartial persons, who would fully and adequately represent all the interests concerned. It certainly had never been his desire to put violent partizans upon the Commission to decide upon the matter. He had endeavoured to avoid that course; and his principal desire was to obtain persons who should adequately represent

      959
      the interests, and, he might say, enjoy the confidence also, of the crofters. He had accordingly applied to those persons who, he thought, was entitled to that confidence. He received their advice on the subject, and went beyond the advice they gave him in the number of persons to represent their interests on the Commission. Several names were sent to him, and he selected from them, giving a larger proportion than that asked for. When he applied to one of those Gentlemen whom the hon. Gentleman had described as a partizan landlord—
      MR. MACFARLANEsaid, what he stated was that he should not object even to a partizan landlord. He never said there was one on the Commission.
      SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he selected two Gentlemen who were well known, and whom he considered would adequately represent the counties of Inverness and Eoss—Mr. Cameron, of Lochiel, and Sir Kenneth Mackenzie. The latter expressed a wish that there should be nobody of the landlord class on the Commission; but he (Sir William Harcourt) said that was an idea which he could not entertain. How was this Commission constituted? It was constituted of two Gentlemen who represented not merely the landlord interest, but something more than that. There were also three Gentlemen who were specially selected in the interest of the crofters. These Gentlemen spoke the Gaelic language, and were intimately connected with the crofter interest themselves—Professor Mackinnon, Professor of Gaelic; Sheriff Nicolson, of Kirkcudbridgeshire; and his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness Burghs (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), who had been the formost man in taking up this question in a moderate spirit, and not in connection with any revolutionary idea. That was the constitution of the Commission—three Gentlemen who must be considered as specially representing the crofters, and two connected with the landlord interest. Then he had also selected a Nobleman who had no special connection with the question, but who was a man of great experience, and who had taken an important part in the affairs of India. He also occupied a high rank in his own country (Scotland), and he did not think there was anyone who could be considered a more impartial
      960
      man to preside over the Commission. He believed the House was of opinion that the Commission was fairly constituted, and that it would be able to remedy the grievances complained of. He hoped the attempt of the hon. Member to discredit the Commission would not be successful either in that House, or in Scotland. With reference to the matter brought forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), he begged to assure him—and he thought the hon. Member was already aware of the fact—that the Government were extremely conscious of the gravity of this subject. The Government were very carefully watching it.; but in dealing with it, everyone must know that if the Government were to step in too prematurely, they would only aggravate the evil. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary to watch and to see what could be done, in the first instance, by those whose duty it was to relieve the distress. The land itself was responsible for the sustenance of the poor, and he would do everything—and he thought that was probably one of the intentions of his hon. Friend—to make known to the public the extent of this distress in order to stimulate and encourage private benevolence. Those were the two sources that unquestionably should be resorted to in the first instance; and it would be the duty of the Government, aided by the Board of Supervision and their officers, after they had made inquiries as to the condition of the distressed districts, to watch very carefully, and to see that if those means were not sufficient, the people should not be allowed to suffer to any extreme extent. He thought that was probably the declaration which his hon. Friend desired to obtain from the Government, and he gave it him in all sincerity.
      MR. ANDERSONsaid, there was one point in the matter which he thought had not been entirely understood by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, or by hon. Members—namely, that the Parochial Boards in Scotland had no power to assist the able-bodied poor, and that was where the grievance and difficulty lay. Under the English Poor Law that power existed, and the able-bodied poor could get relief; but in Scotland the Parochial Board had no power to give such relief. What was needed in this case was that the Government should give instructions to the

      961
      Scotch Parochial Boards that they must take care that no one should starve, and that Government would indemnify them for any action they took under these circumstances. This was no new grievance; they had felt the want of such a power over and over again, and in every time of exceptional distress; and in every Amendment Bill that had been brought into the House to amend the Scotch Poor Law he had endeavoured to carry an Amendment giving Parochial Boards the power, in times of exceptional distress, either local or general, that was now withheld from them—that of relieving the able-bodied poor. Without some such power as that, cases such as the present would every now and again be occurring in Scotland.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, that he thought the present was a proper occasion for an Irish Member to call the attention of the Government to the necessity for seed potatoes that existed in certain parts of Ireland. There was no general necessity for seed; but there was no doubt that, in certain districts, seed was very badly required, and that the present was the time to meet that demand. Every question that had been raised by Scotch Members in relation to their own country equally applied to Ireland in certain districts. The second point that the Scotch Members had pointed out was, that the Duke of Sutherland was making arrangements for building a railroad, and so affording employment after the spring work was over. Some such work as that was much wanted in Ireland, where the pinch would be felt after the spring work was over; but they had no Duke of Sutherland in Ireland. A third point was that, in Ireland as in Scotland, there was no power to grant outdoor relief to able-bodied paupers, and they were exactly in the same position as the crofters of Scotland. He hoped the Government would inquire into the matter of necessity for seeds in the West of Ireland, and in any case he thought this was a proper time for an Irish Member to call attention to the question.
      MR. AETHUR O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the Government would do their duty with reference to the distress in Scotland, and they would not again hear repeated the terrible state of things to which the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had called attention. The Government said they were going to
      962
      make inquiries; they were going to wait—he was afraid they were going to wait to be furnished with statistics while people were starving, where people had died of starvation. The people were walking 30 miles to and 30 miles back to get to their work and to get food; and the hon. Member for Glasgow told them that 200 Scotch families were in that condition. These people did not want seed potatoes; they wanted food, and the Government ought to have the courage of their position, and say that they would see that no person died of starvation. He hoped sincerely, in the interests of the Scotch poor, that the Government would not adopt the same course in Scotland as what they did in Ireland. The Irish poor were offered the workhouse, and nothing else; and he trusted the Government would take a more humane course in Scotland, for it would be a disgrace to the House and the country if any person was allowed to die of starvation. There was a Mace lying on the Table of the House which would sell for a good sum of money; and if the House had not any other means in that rich country to prevent people from starving, he thought they ought to sell it, and give the proceeds in relief. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] It would certainly be much better to do that than to allow persons to walk 30 miles to and 30 miles back in a day in search of employment which they could not find after all. He trusted, therefore, that in Ireland and Scotland the Government would not fail in its duty in relieving the distress acknowledged to exist amongst the poor.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolved, That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Thursday the 29th of March.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BANKRUPTCY BILL.— [BILL 4.]
  (Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. John Holms.)
  BANKRUPTCY BILL.— [BILL 4.]

    FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
    Order read for resuming Further Proceedings after Second Beading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures."—(Mr. Chamberlain.)
    MR. RAIKES, in moving, as an Amendment—
    "That in the absence of any definite regulations for the transaction of public business by the Standing Committees, it is inexpedient to transfer to those bodies the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over Public Bills by Committees of the whole House,"
    said, that while it would not be desirable or right on that occasion to re-open the general controversy as to the desirability of the new machinery created in the course of the Autumn Session, seeing that it was an accomplished fact, he thought the House would not be unwilling to pause for a few minutes to consider a step so momentous as that proposed on the present occasion, and which would give effect to a very remarkable change in the system of legislation. They all knew that the Prime Minister regarded this part of the scheme of Procedure proposed last year as remedial; while the earlier Resolutions were rather the coercive part of his policy; and, therefore, they should all of them be more disinclined to criticize it than they otherwise might. But the House had been placed in no small difficulty by the determination of the Government, in the course of last Session, that the procedure of these Standing Committees was to be, not that of the House, but that of a Select Committee; and it was really upon that point that he wished to offer a few observations to the House. They were asked to supersede the jurisdiction which the House had hitherto exercised over all legislation that came before it, and to transfer that jurisdiction to a small body, no doubt selected with the intention of its possessing what was called a microcosmic character, but which was not a Committee of the Whole House. Such a Committee would have to subsist for some time before it could have the measure of public confidence which the House had when in Committee. Great reason ought, in his judgment, to be adduced in favour of a change in their proceedings which was likely to be fraught with results so considerable. While they were told that this was to multiply the voices of the House of Commons, it appeared to him to be more analogous to shutting up its natural organ of speech, and making it speak through both its ears. Select Committees, he would point out, might be roughly divided into two classes—
    964
    the class of Select Committee which had legislative functions, and was occupied with Private Bills; and, in the second place, that class of Committees which was rather of an advisory or consultative character, and which was the Select Committee to which they generally gave that name. He would also point out that the procedure of those two classes of Select Committees varied in some very important points. In the case of a Select Committee on Private Bills, the Chairman was allowed a vote, and he was also allowed to give a casting vote; but in a Select Committee on public matters the Chairman was not allowed to vote, and had only a casting vote. They were entitled to ask which of those two classes of Select Committees was to shape the procedure which was to be adopted in the Standing Committees? He would ask, besides, whether any decision was to be arrived at outside of those Committees as to the mode in which their Members were to address the Chair—whether they were to rise in their places or not? That was a matter of more importance than might appear on the face it. Next, there was a point of even more importance—that of the publication of their proceedings. Her Majesty's Government, he knew, had made some provision for the admission of the public; and he was glad that the Committees were to be allowed to be master of their own proceedings, and to have the power of admitting and excluding strangers. They might say some provision had been made for the publication of the proceedings of the Standing Committees in the ordinary channels of information; but he did not see himself that the space in the new rooms admitted of the information being diffused very widely. They might, he thought, squeeze four reporters into the box; but when they came to an important question, and when there would be reporters from all the London newspapers, and from most of the great Provincial newspapers, it would be found to be rather difficult to arrange the claims of the respective journals as to the possession of those seats. But another important question in connection with the publication of their proceedings was, how the House was to be officially informed as to the proceedings of this Committee. He believed that when Notice was given of an Amendment on

    965
    a Bill like the present, by any Member of the House who did not happen to be a Member of the Standing Committee, that Amendment would be placed on the Notice Paper in the usual manner, and the Committee would be called upon to consider it on its merits. How such Amendments would fare in the absence of those who were responsible for them remained to be seen. What was the authority which was to regulate proceedings of that sort? He was anxious to hear some suggestion from the Government which would simplify the matter. Was the question of the procedure of the Committees to be left to the Speaker, or to the Chairmen's Panel, who had been chosen by the Committee of Selection; or to the Committee of Selection itself; or to the Standing Committees themselves? All those matters were left in the dark. It was to be regretted that the Government, in creating those new tribunals, had not formed a definite scheme with regard to their procedure. Another question was, what was to be the power of the Committees with respect to their own adjournment? Were they to adjourn as the majority might determine, when, perhaps, there was only a small number in attendance? And were they to be empowered to adjourn for any length of time they pleased—say, for three weeks, or a month? Such a power might be extremely inconvenient; but he did not see what check on such proceedings was provided. On the other hand, there would be a certain amount of inconvenience if the Committee were compelled to sit during whole days when there was no question before it; and it might be extremely embarrassing to proceed with a Bill when it was intended to remodel some of its clauses. Then, again, how were divisions to be taken? There was no difficulty with a Select Committee, because the numbers were small and Members answered to their names, and the names wore taken down. He presumed that was to be the form in the present case, because they had been informed that the practice of Select Committees was to be followed unless it was otherwise ordered. But in a Committee of 60 or 70 Members there would be some difficulty in adopting that course. Again, what was to be the position of the Chairman? There was a difference of practice between the Private Bill Com-
    966
    mittees, which were legislative, and the Select Committees, which were simply advisory. He gathered that the Procedure of the latter would be followed with respect to the Chairman. The Chairmen of Select Committees occupied a different position from the Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, and were enabled to speak and vote. It would be a misfortune, considering the eminence of the Chairmen of these Standing Committees, if they were not allowed to take part in discussions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) was Chairman of one of the Committees, and it would be a pity if he could not contribute to the discussions. But, at the same time, it was not an unmixed advantage for a Chairman to take part in debate, as he would find it difficult to maintain the traditional authority and impartiality of the Chair, and more especially when, as was extremely probable, his ruling might be questioned by the very Members with whom he might have just previously been engaged in an animated dispute. That authority and impartiality were an heritage of the House which ought to be strictly maintained. How little the question was understood out-of-doors might be gathered from the statement made that morning in a daily newspaper, which was supposed to express the views of the Ministerial Party, that the proceedings in those Committees would be governed by the proceedings of Committees of the Whole House. He wished it were so, for then the House would know where it was, and he could look forward to the proceedings of those Committees with more hope than he could pretend now to entertain. He had always regarded the whole scheme as objectionable and unconstitutional. Members of that House were sent to represent their constituents, and they were not empowered by those whom they represented to delegate their functions to others. He believed these bodies would embarrass and complicate the working of the House. He would think otherwise if he thought they would give—as they were promised to give—greater opportunities for the expression of individual opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said they would tend to liberate the House from thraldom, and encourage young Mem-

    967
    bers to speak and develop the latent talent of the House. He (Mr. Raikes) was sure that would be a good result; but he doubted whether it would be so. Speaking as an ex-Chairman of Committees, he would be glad if young Members could be induced to speak; and any Chairman would, for example, rather listen to a young Member than hear the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone) address the Committee for half an hour. The working of those Committees would be extremely likely to disappoint those who had formed sanguine expectations. He would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman should have succeeded in forging a new weapon to make the House more useful to the country; but, as the question now stood, he thought the new system was open to the gravest objection. What was chiefly desired was a statement from the Government as to some simple and plain Standing Orders which would have the authority of the House, and would simplify the procedure of the Committees. They were entitled to ask the Government to come forward with some proposal. He believed the functions to be delegated to these Standing Committees were such as should not be given to any Committee. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the absence of any definite regulations for the transaction of public business by the Standing Committees, it is inexpedient to transfer to those bodies the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over Public Bills by Committees of the Whole House,"—(Mr. Raikes,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I do not intend to follow my right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) in his attacks on the Committees, or his prophecies as to their failure. If my right hon. Friend had found it to have been compatible with his engagements to act on the Panel of Chairmen, when requested to do so by the Committee of Selection, I am sure that he would have found it unnecessary to submit this Motion to the House. The Standing Orders in relation to the Standing Committees provide—
    968
    "That the procedure in such Committees shall be the same as in a Select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise provide."
    This Instruction is quite definite, and the Panel of Chairmen has had several meetings for the purpose of considering whether the procedure of Select Committees was sufficiently definite and comprehensive to guide the deliberations of Standing Committees, which differed from them chiefly in size and importance. They found that in practice the Amendments to a Bill are considered and determined in a Select Committee upon the same procedure as that of a Committee of the Whole House. Even in regard to debate, the practice is the same, although it is apt to lose some of its formality from the small number of Members of a Select Committee. This was the only essential point on which the Panel of Chairmen thought it necessary to be quite clear, that there should be the same formality of speaking and debate as there is in a Committee of the Whole House; for, without this formality, a large Committee of 80 Members is likely to get into confusion. But this is a mere detail, which varies in Select Committees themselves in accordance with the character of the Chairman who presides; and it was not in contravention of the Standing Order, and did not, therefore, require any authority from the House. The Panel of Chairmen carefully considered and laid down for themselves the mode of procedure in Standing Committees; but, in doing so, they only formulated the practice of Select Committees when performed in a formal and efficient manner, either according to Standing Orders, or established usage. They thought it would be most convenient that the Committees should meet on separate days, and considered that, on the whole, Mondays and Fridays would be most suitable for the Trade Committee, and Tuesdays and Thursdays for the Law Committee, until the House entered regularly into its Morning Sittings. The hours of sitting proposed are from 12 to 3.45. The Panel of Chairmen provided for the due printing and circulation of Amendments, not only to Members of the Committee, but also to the Whole House, through the authority which Mr. Speaker already possesses. Although minute details had to be considered as to the mode of taking and recording divisions, there was no-

    969
    thing in these that did not entirely adapt themselves to the practice of Select Committees, and they were not of a character which the House required to approve. In fact, after careful consideration of the procedure, the Panel of Chairmen thought the Standing Order of the House was quite sufficient for the guidance of the presiding Chairman of each Committee. They had no doubt that the ready co-operation of the Committee itself would soon adjust any unexpected difficulty which might arise. They were not empowered by the House, and much less were the Government empowered by the Standing Order, to propose any formal Rules for the guidance of the Standing Committees. The House in its wisdom enjoined the procedure of Select Committees; and beyond conducting this procedure with increased formality of debate, there was nothing else required, in the opinion of the Chairmen, to enable the Standing Committees to be conducted with efficiency. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) will be satisfied that the various points have been considered, which may enable the Members of the Committee to pursue their labours with method and efficiency, and that he will not consider it necessary to divide the House upon this Motion.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had not answered the question which had been put by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes), as to whether the Chairman was entitled to take part in the discussion as in the Select Committee?
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: The Panel of Chairmen have received no power from the House to make Rules; but they have agreed among themselves to follow mainly the practice of Committees of the Whole House.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he presumed that the Amendments to any Bill referred to a Grand Committee would, as a matter of form, have to be presented at the Table of the House, printed, and then, under Standing Order 22, referred to the Committee. He wished to know whether this reference to the Committee would not merely be a matter of form, but whether, when the Amendments were sent upstairs, they would he brought to the attention of the Committee, as the clauses to which they referred were brought forward? If not, the Member
    970
    interested in any particular Amendment would have to be running after some Member of the Committee to ensure their being proposed at the proper time.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the late Chairman of Committees did not appear to have even attempted to make any answer to most of the questions put to him by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes). The Resolutions relating to the Grand Committees had not received the same attention as the other Resolutions, for everyone was so sick of the subject at the Autumn Session that all the Amendments relating to the formation of these Committees were dropped on the last day of the Session. The question of these Grand Committees required more careful consideration than the House had as yet given to it. He had examined the composition of these four Committees with some curiosity; and, so far from the Government majority being proportionately represented on them, there was no such thing at all. If hon. Members from Ireland sitting below the Gangway on the Opposition side were classed as part of the regular Opposition it would be found that on the Grand Committee on Law the Government had only a majority of three, while on the Committee of Trade and Commerce they were in a minority of two. This might lead to awkward results for the Government; for supposing in the case of an important Government Bill, such as the Bankruptcy Bill, a Motion were carried adjourning the Committee for a month, there would be very little chance of the Bill passing. Again, after the first one or two meetings of a Committee the attendance might be very scanty, and opportunities might then arise for sharp practice, placing the Government in an embarrassing position. He thought, therefore, the Government ought to express their opinion as to whether a Motion to adjourn the Committee for a month was one which it was competent for the Committee to carry; and, if not, whether it would be competent for the Committee to carry any Motion at all. Although a Bill such as the Bankruptcy Bill might not be a Party question, there might be details on which very strong opinions were entertained, and it was only right that those opinions should be properly represented. He also thought

    971
    the Prime Minister, who had been responsible for the introduction of these Resolutions, should decide whether the Chairman could take part in debate or not. At the same time, he thought it very singular if the Chairman were allowed to do so, for he would thereby expose himself to taunts and observations of a scornful character, to which, having regard to the dignity of his position, he ought not to be exposed. He would point out to the Government that the Panel of Chairmen had been left entirely without Rules for their guidance. There was nothing to prevent any Member questioning the Chairman's decision and debating it. Besides those he had mentioned, there were many other points which might be raised with regard to these Grand Committees; and he did not think, therefore, that the Government would lose any time if they were to postpone the matter until after the Easter Recess, and to give it their consideration in the meantime. If Amendments were hastily run over in Committee, owing to Members not being in their places, lengthy debates would arise in the House and Motions to re-commit the Bill, and more time would probably be lost than at present. He thought the point brought forward by his right hon. Friend would be found well worthy the consideration of the House.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, they had believed that this new expedient in legislation would be a reflection of the character of the House; in other words, that these Legislative Bodies to whom they deputed their authority would be representative of the various interests in the country. He owned that nothing would have induced him to acquiesce in the appointment of such a new authority if he had not believed that it would be thoroughly representative. An analysis of the list of the 64 Gentlemen whose names had been submitted as representative of the House on this question would, however, show that that principle had not been adhered to. In introducing his Bill the President of the Board of Trade expounded to the House the far-reaching effect of the measure, and did not disguise that it would have the most momentous effects upon the habits and social condition of the people. The body delegated by the House to scrutinize the Bill ought, therefore, to be representative of their interests. As regarded political Parties, he believed
    972
    the balance had been struck fairly well; but there was an almost entire absence on the Committee of Representatives of the mass of the industrial community and of retail trade and labour. Upon that Committee, of the 10 Metropolitan cities four were absolutely unrepresented —Marylebone, Finsbury, Chelsea, and Southwark—with upwards of 1,500,000 inhabitants — were unrepresented. In Ireland, of five so-called cities, two— Cork and Limerick—were totally excluded. Twenty-eight towns and cities in England, all of them containing above 40,000, many above 60,000, and several above 100,000, inhabitants, and with a total population of 2,500,000, were also unrepresented. With the disfranchised portion of the Metropolis, that made 4,000,000 of people without representation on the Committee; and those 4,000,000, it should be remembered, consisted mainly of the industrial population, whose social position this Bill was intended to change. One city excluded was Norwich—a most industrious and enterprizing place—which deserved greater consideration. Nor was one of the six Members representing the county in which Norwich was situated on the Committee. Had this Bill not affected all classes of the community he should not have raised this question. He objected also to this Panel on the ground that it was essentially one of capitalists. These were not times when the House should delegate its authority exclusively to those whose influence was supposed to be exerted only on one side. The Committee should have had upon it the Representatives of such towns as Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Brighton, Nottingham, Bradford, and Bolton. He hoped that the Government would use its superintending care in this matter, and make the Committee more representative of the industrial classes. In his judgment, the division of the House into three or four Panels would have been a much better plan; but, at any rate, the Grand Committees should be increased to the number of 100. He wished the experiment of the Grand Committees every success; but, if it were to have that success, an alteration must be made in the direction he had indicated.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, he felt bound to vindicate the action of the Committee of Selection. He regretted that the hon. Member for Finsbury

    973
    (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had not given him Notice of his intended attack, for, had Notice been given, he would have been better prepared to refute the charges that had been made. The Committee of Selection believed that the Members whom they had chosen represented the House politically and territorially, and also represented its intelligence and talent, as shown in the debates. The hon. Member for Finsbury complained that certain large towns were not represented; but he would remind the hon. Member that 24 large towns were represented, including Liverpool, with 493,000 inhabitants; Glasgow, with 477,000; Manchester, with 383,000; Birmingham, with 343,000: Leeds, with 259,000; Sheffield, with 239,000; Bristol, with 182,000; Stoke-upon-Trent, with 120,000; Salford, with 124,000; Hull, with 123,000; Portsmouth, with 113,000. Then there were the Cities of London and Westminster, the Metropolitan boroughs of Hackney, with 362,000 inhabitants; the Tower Hamlets, with 391,000; and Greenwich, with 169,000. There were also the Cities of Dublin, with 267,000 inhabitants, and Belfast, with 174,000. Among the great county constituencies were Yorkshire, South-West Biding, with 397,000; North Durham, with 225,000; Mid Surrey, with 203,000; South Essex, with 181,000; West Cornwall, with 161,000; West Gloucestershire, with 158,000; East Suffolk, with 157,000; West Kent, with j 154,000; South Northumberland, with 110,000; and Perthshire, with 101,000. Then there were other industrial centres, important, but not numerically strong, such as Preston, Wigan, Huddersfield, and Burnley. Among Members representing smaller constituencies, but connected with trade and commerce, were the Members for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), for Aylesbury (Sir Nathaniel de Rothschild), for Boss and Cromarty (Sir Alexander Matheson), and for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland). The hon. Member said that capitalists only were on the Committee. Was the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) a capitalist? The hon. Member pointed out that the City of Cork was not represented. That was true; but the House would see, on the other hand, that the County of Cork was re-presented, while the City of Cork was represented on the Law Committee by one of its Members (Mr. Parnell), who
    974
    had expressed publicly in the House his desire to be on that Committee. It might also be true that the City of Norwich was not represented; but there were special difficulties in obtaining an hon. Member representing that neighbourhood. The Committee of Selection might have made some mistakes; but they had throughout been actuated by a desire to do their duty conscientiously. If there were any omission from the list of the Committee which it might be desirable to fill up, the case could be met by the exercise of the provision which enabled the Committee of Selection to add the names of 15 specially qualified Gentlemen.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was one of those who felt keenly the incompleteness—he might almost say the ambiguity—in which this question of Standing Committees was left by the House at the end of the Autumn Session; and in consequence he had expressed some little hesitation in acting as Chairman of one of those Committees. But having discussed the matter with friends who had given much time and thought to the subject, he was convinced that it was his duty to endeavour to assist in giving the experiment the best chance of success in his power. At the same time, he should not have accepted the Chairmanship of one of these Committees if it had been understood that the Chairman was to be a partizan Chairman; and he made it a sine quâ non that there was nothing in the Standing Orders of Select Committees which should prevent the procedure of Standing Committees being assimilated as much as possible, as regarded form and order of debate, with the proceedings of Committees of the Whole House. The assistance of the Speaker in forming the procedure of Standing Committees would be highly desirable; but much must be left to experience. It would have been highly imprudent to lay down a scheme of procedure which could not have been exhaustive, and so must have offered loopholes to attack. It was far wiser, the House having determined to try an experiment, that Standing Committees should commence to sit unshackled by any new Rules of Procedure.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens) has introduced into this discussion matter which was hardly within the immediate scope of

    975
    the subject before us. I am glad, however, that an opportunity has been given to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John R. Mowbray) to show the great care with which the Committee of Selection has discharged its important duties in connection with the selection of the Standing Committees; and I am very glad to have an opportunity of expressing my sense of obligation to the Committee of Selection for the manner in which those duties have been performed. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, who has very clear views on the present question, distinctly shows that his objections go to the root of the whole matter. They are not objections applicable to the manner in which the Committee of Selection has performed its duty, but to the duty which has been given to that Committee. My hon. Friend said, and I have no doubt truly, that there are 29 towns of 40,000 people unrepresented, and there are also 26 large towns unrepresented, it being claimed by my hon. Friend that those large towns should be represented; 29 plus 26 make 55, so that, in a Committee of 65 or 70 persons, the Committee of Selection, according to my hon. Friend, would have been obliged to begin by appointing 55 Members for large towns of about 40,000 people. It is, therefore, quite clear that the objection of my hon. Friend is really an objection to the number of the Committee. He says it should have been larger—that is, he objects to the Standing Order itself. I think it is quite unnecessary to anticipate, as the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) has done, the possibility of the failure of those Committees in consequence of gross and monstrous error. Of course, if we are to suppose the Members of any of the bodies to which the House delegates its powers to be actuated by folly or criminality, we might fear most absurd and monstrous consequences. I do not, however, think it is necessary to entertain that supposition, which appears to be at the basis of the whole argument of the noble Lord. Happily, we can proceed, to a great extent, in matters of this kind upon the principle of confidence; and I must say I have known no more satisfactory sign of the "manner in which the principle of confidence can be entertained, and can be applied to a large portion, at any rate, of the Business of this House—no clearer proof of the disposition that al-
    976
    ways exists to withdraw from the arena of Party contention very important portions of our legislative work—than has been afforded to us, in the first place, by the manner in which Gentlemen sitting on both sides of this House have consented to undertake very onerous duties, and to become responsible for the working of a measure, for the original inception of which they have no responsibility whatever, and of which they may have disapproved. I cannot conceive anything more agreeable than to witness conduct of that kind, now exemplified in the remarkable concurrence of my right hon. Friend on this side and of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who has just sat down, and who is himself one of the Members to whom I refer in mentioning the manner in which the spirit of co-operation has been displayed, even upon a subject which might have afforded us material for a long debate, and even, I might say, of a long contention. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated that, in his judgment, it would have been a mistake if the Panel of Chairmen bad endeavoured to lay down a set of Rules for the guidance of these Committees. He says they are bound by the Order of the House to adopt the procedure of Select Committees, as it is expressed in Standing Orders, and as it is established, no doubt, by practice. As to what lies beyond that, the Panel of Chairmen have determined that it is better to wait the teaching and guidance of experience. That is exactly acting upon what has been declared in this House, and thoroughly understood in this House before the House arrived at its final decision. The right hon. Gentleman says, in all truth, that it would have been a great mistake on the part of the Panel of Chairmen if they had endeavoured to frame a set of Rules with regard to which, in the first place, their authority might have been questioned; and, in the second place, they might have been certain that their enumeration might not have been complete. In that I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. They would have made a great mistake had they endeavoured to anticipate beforehand cases that might possibly arise in working out an experiment which contains within it so much of novelty. But I will go further, and say that, great as that mistake would have been on the part of the Panel of

    977
    Chairmen, it would have been a still greater mistake were we to adopt the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), and in this House to attempt to perform the functions which the Panel of Chairmen considered the)' were unable to perform. I do not mean we should have laboured under any defect of authority; but I do mean this—that we should have discussions of a much more promiscuous and miscellaneous character, much less closely adhering to the point, proceeding from Members, in many cases, much less qualified than the Panel of Chairmen are, to discuss the matter, and always labouring under this difficulty, that experience alone can guide you along a path which is, in a considerable degree, novel. That is the state of the case as to the general grounds. At the end of November or the beginning of December the House adopted this proposition, that we should make an experiment. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) says, with truth, that a number of Amendments distributed over the Notice Paper were not discussed. That was so; but those Notices disappeared, mainly on this ground—that the Government were willing to give satisfaction to what they thought the reasonable inclination of a large portion of the House to bring the experiment within narrow limits, so that we might see what we were about, and not commit ourselves wholesale to a new system, until we had some experience of the working of it. As far as the main matters are concerned in the Rules applicable to Select Committees and the usages of these Committees, and as to all that lies beyond, it would be better to wait the teaching of experience, as it will be represented to us through the able and experienced body of Gentlemen who have undertaken to act on the Panel of Chairmen. I am bound to say that all the points the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) has enumerated were points which, I hold in my humble judgment, can easily be disposed of when they come to be put in practice in these Committees. With regard to the question suggested by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) as to the position of the Chairman, there is no doubt that the Chairman in the Standing Committees
    978
    will be entitled to speak. As these Grand Committees are to be governed by the Rules of Procedure which governs Select Committees, it will clearly be within the discretion of the Chairman to give his opinion. It might be said, from the nature of these bodies, that it would not be expedient that the Chairman should avail himself to the full of the rights he may possess as a Member of the Committee. That may be so; but the degree in which he should exercise that right, and the question whether it is desirable to impose any limitation of that right—these are questions which we could not possibly discuss with advantage. We must feel our way in such matters. Put men of sense in the Chair, and these men of sense, with the Committee around them, will be perfectly able to form weighty and trustworthy judgments on any questions that may arise. I hope it will not be necessary to go through all the points raised by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, because I would much rather, now that the House has taken its course, and has determined upon an experiment of a certain character and limit, as far as Grand Committees are concerned—I think it is very much better that that should be held to be under the care and guardianship of those who have received the confidence of the House, the Members of the Committee of Selection, and the Panel of Chairmen, rather than that it should be treated by myself as Leader of the House, or by other Members of the Government, because our desire is—as we feel we are working for a common interest, and until the time may come when we are to consider whether we are to carry the experiment further, or recede from it altogether—that as far as possible the matter should remain in the hands of those who would speak without the possibility of any selfish interest or Party prejudice, as the right hon Gentleman has just spoken this evening. An hon. Member had spoken of Amendments ab extra. Papers are often referred now to a Committee which is sitting; but they do not prescribe the mode in which the Committee should deal with those Papers. I It is far better for the present that we I should trust the discretion of the Committee, as to the mode of dealing with those Amendments. We have shown distinctly to the Committee that we wish

    979
    to retain for all the Members of this House the power of making suggestions and Amendments; and no doubt the Committee, if they would preserve the confidence of the House, will perceive, when they observe Amendments on the Notice Paper, that the House desires that those Amendments should be taken into consideration. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock seems to think that the difference between the two modes of procedure—the procedure before the Private Bill Committees and that before Select Committees—is not sufficiently marked. I think I may give the noble Lord the assurance that this is not so. The proceedings before Private Bill Committees are under separate Rules of their own, and will not interfere or clash with the proceedings of these Standing Committees. The proceedings of Select Committees are governed by certain Standing Orders, by usage, and by tradition. I will not dwell longer on this matter, believing that the question is a simple one, and that we decided it last December. We stand simply on the proposition that, as to what remains incomplete in the practical mode necessary for the conduct of Business before these Standing Committees, it is best that in the present state of things we should wait for experience and take that as our guide.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat misunderstood the Motion of my right hon. Friend, and has put upon it a construction which the observations of my right hon. Friend did not convey. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that my right hon. Friend desires to express an opinion that definite regulations ought to be made in and by this House for the prosecution of Business before the Standing Committees. What I understood him to say was that, before any Bill was committed to one of the Standing Committees, the regulations which he desires to see should be made somewhere, by some authority, and that we should know what it was we were doing when we sent up a Bill to be dealt with before one of these Committees. There is a great distinction between that proposal and a proposal that the matter should be discussed in the House. Everybody feels —even those who, like myself and others, have been sceptical as to the working of the Grand Committees—that the experi-
    980
    ment ought to be fairly tried; and we are desirous that it should be fairly tried, if at all. But the question is—What is the best way of trying it? I do not say there should be a detailed code of regulations on every point; but I think we should be informed as to some of the main principles upon which the Committees must act, whether experimental or otherwise. This discussion has been very useful, and we have learned a great deal that will be of value to us as throwing light on the situation; but still we are left in an unsatisfactory position with regard to one question which has been referred to. The cardinal question is that of the position of the Chairman, and I think that is a point upon which it would be extremely desirable that there should be a clear understanding. The answer given is, that we are to be guided by the Rules of the Select Committee. If you are, of course the Chairman will take a very active part in the discussion of the Bill, and will not only vote when called upon for his casting vote, but will probably draw up himself and propose Amendments to be discussed. Surely the point has by this time been fully considered by the Government? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) has given no certain sound on this question; my right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) has said that he understands it very clearly; but the Prime Minister had made the whole matter obscure and doubtful. What has been said I have no doubt will be carefully weighed by th6 Chairman, and the Committee will give proper weight to what, I think, I may say is the obvious sense of the House, that the Chairman's business is to act as Chairman, and he must consider that that is the more important part of his duty, and not the promotion of this or that particular view. No doubt it will be a great loss if the Chairman should be precluded from giving his opinion; but if we are to give the Standing Committees a fair chance, they must be so guided that the duty of the Chairman must be to make himself efficient in that post, and not an advocate. I hope my right hon. Friend will feel it unnecessary to divide the House on this question, but will content himself with the useful discussion that has been raised.
    MR. NORWOODsaid, he regretted the conspicuous absence of the legal element from the Grand Committee to which the Bankruptcy Bill was to be referred. The Solicitor General and the Solicitor General for Scotland were to be Members of the Committee; but, except for those two hon. and learned Gentlemen, the Committee would not have the valuable help of any of the 11 barristers and solicitors who had taken part in the debate last night. In considering the clauses of the Bill it would be a distinct disadvantage to be without the assistance of Gentlemen specially acquainted with the mode and conduct of bankruptcy proceedings; and he hoped, therefore, that a few Members of the Legal Profession would be added to the Committee. With regard to the general question, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had elicited so much information from the Government; and he felt sure that the Government themselves would see the advantage of carefully preparing the Rules under which delegated Business was to be conducted. One point, however, remained unsettled, and it would be well to know whether the Grand Committees were to sit four days a week or only two, and at what hour they were to meet. He would only add that the Chairman ought not, in his opinion, to take a leading part in the proceedings.
    MR. RITCHIEremarked that the position in which the House was placed was well illustrated by the contrary views taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and by the Prime Minister as to the duties of the Chairmen of the new Committees. Were the Chairmen to act like Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House, or like Chairmen of Select Committees? It had been suggested that the Panel of Chairmen should lay down Rules of Procedure; but the Standing Order gave them no such authority, and the question was eminently one for the decision of the House. The new procedure had been described, correctly enough, as an experiment; but it was a most important experiment, and he should have preferred to see it tried on some measure of less consequence than the Bankruptcy Bill. It did not appear that anything had
    982
    been laid down as to what should be done in the event of there not being a quorum of a Grand Committee. It was a pity that this experiment was to be tried under unfavourable auspices, because the course of procedure had not been settled. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not divide the House, but would be satisfied with the discussion.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he wished to draw attention to a point which seemed to have escaped the observation of hon. Members who had taken part in the discussion up to the present. He desired to point out that provision had only been made for four reporters in each of the Grand Committee Rooms—that, in all probability, the Serjeant-at-Arms would experience great difficulty in allocating the seats, and that whatever arrangement he made would be sure to give offence to many newspapers. As the House was aware, a certain sum of money was given to Mr. Hansard for reporting the debates of the House, and also for reporting the debates in Committee of the Whole House. Mr. Hansard did not report the proceedings of Select Committees. Well, these Grand Committees were neither Committees of the Whole House, nor Select Committees, and were not within the terms of the arrangement with Mr. Hansard. It was evidently intended that their proceedings should be reported in some way, otherwise accommodation would not have been prepared for four reporters; and he would therefore suggest, as a means of making it easier to give satisfaction to all newspapers, that instead of admitting four reporters they should admit only one, who should give copies of his reports to all the newspapers that required them. Some arrangement of this kind might be made with Mr. Hansard. It would, of course, involve an extra Vote; but he thought that such an arrangement as that would be found to give satisfaction. For his own part, he agreed with those people who believed that their Business would go on better if they had no reports at all; still, that was not the general view; and he, therefore, thought the suggestion he now made deserved some consideration.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to make one practical suggestion to the Chairmen's Panel. It appeared to him

    983
    that there was considerable difficulty about the point which had been raised with regard to Amendments. As he understood the arrangement at present, if a Member, either through his constituents, or through being connected with a public body, proposed an Amendment, and was not a Member of the Grand Committee, he must take his chance of having the Amendment discussed or brought before the Committee by an hon. Member who did belong to it, but would not have an opportunity of representing his own views of the Amendment which had been suggested to him. Then, when the Bill went back to the House, if those Amendments were not in the Bill, and the Member interested in them tried to raise them again, he would be told that they had been considered before the Committee; and, although he had not had an opportunity of representing his constituents or his own views upon them, it would be impossible for him, after they had been considered by the Grand Committee, to raise them again for the consideration of the House. That might be a very serious and difficult position, and the only way of obviating it that occurred to him was that a Member, not being a Member of the Grand Committee and having Amendments on the Paper, should be allowed to attend the Committee, not as a voter, but as an advocate, so that he should have an opportunity of placing his own views before the Committee. The Amendments would then be properly discussed. That was the only way out of the difficulty which he could think of; and he threw out the suggestion for the consideration of the Chairmen's Panel, who would be able to decide what it was worth.
    MR. WHITBREADsaid, the Leader of the Opposition appeared to think that there ought to be some Rules framed, not by the House, but by some other authority, for the guidance of the Standing Committees. But who were to frame them? The Chairmen's Panel had no power to frame Rules, and he had come to the conclusion that they had better be left to the practice established under the Standing Orders, or that the House must be asked to frame Rules; and the latter alternative was not desired. The Chairmen's Panel would be doing all that lay in their power if they came to an agreement to make certain
    984
    recommendations with regard to procedure to the Committees when, they met. The House had indicated pretty clearly in the Standing Orders that the Chairman of Ways and Means was an officer to keep Order in debate, and in that respect differed from an ordinary Chairman of a Select Committee, who had charge of the measure before him; and any Chairman who wished to keep control of a Committee would be careful to avoid entering into a debate in such a way as to expose himself to a charge of partizanship. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) had expressed his fear that the Government would lose its authority in these Committees. The Standing Committees, however, had been so composed as to give to every section and Party in the House a strict representation according to its number; the majority of the Government, the strength of the Opposition, and that of other Parties, were all fairly represented on the Committees. They were told by the House to make each Committee a miniature House, and he believed the mandate had been well carried out. His hon. Friend (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had complained that some four Metropolitan constituencies and 26 large towns were not represented; but when these were compared with the remaining Metropolitan boroughs and the 29 large towns which were represented, he thought it must be plain that the representation was on a fair and sound basis. With regard to the lack of the legal element on the Trade Committee, to which the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) drew attention, he would merely say that the Committee was not yet fully constructed, and therefore the criticisms were somewhat premature. The House had given them power, after having made a miniature of the House at large, to add 15 specialists; and the claims of the Legal Profession to a larger representation would not be overlooked. With reference to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), he would suggest that a Grand Committee should be left to follow the practice of Select Committees, governed by the Standing Order, in the event of a quorum not being constituted. The suggestion which had been offered with regard to reporters was well worthy of consideration. It was within the province of the Speaker

    985
    to make arrangements for reporters; but as the available space would be very limited, perhaps it would be possible to arrange that a single report should be accessible to all who wished to have it. In conclusion, he stated that the Chairmen's Panel had agreed that there should be two Sittings of each Committee every week.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, that the discussion on this question was confined to a mere criticism of the proposals of the Government; but no Member had made a practical suggestion on the matter. Now, it appeared to him that a better plan than that of the Government would be if the whole House sat in the afternoon for the purpose of Business, and, rising for an interval, it could sit again for Business with which the House alone was concerned. If that suggestion were adopted the continuous character of the proceedings would be maintained, and they would not be kept there until an unreasonably late hour, and the Speaker would not have to suffer the dreadful hardships to which he was at present subjected. He thought it right to make that suggestion, inasmuch as it had been stated that the Government intended to dwell on this subject further during the Recess; and perhaps they would take into consideration whether their purposes would not be better attained by the plan he suggested than that of the Grand Committees.
    MR. WARTONcomplained that the President of the Board of Trade seemed determined that his Bill, or none, should pass. He (Mr. Warton), however, was of opinion that the Bankruptcy Bills of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) and the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) should also be referred to this Grand Committee.
    MR. LEWISasked when the House was to understand that the 15 special Members of the Trade Committee were to be named, and whether Notice of such Motion would be given?
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that was a matter entirely for the Committee of Selection. He had, however, conferred with the Chairman of the Trade Committee, who thought it would probably not be convenient for that Committee to meet so early as the first Monday after the Easter Recess. He proposed, therefore, to put down the first meeting of
    986
    the Committee for Monday, the 9th of April, which would leave plenty of time for the addition of the 15 names necessary to complete the Committee.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he quite appreciated the great merit of this Bill, and the great ability which the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had displayed in introducing it; and for that reason he desired to know why Ireland was excluded from the benefits of the measure? The Secretary of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce was in favour of the Bill; and if it were true that the Bill had the approval of the commercial element in Ireland, he did not see why that country should be excluded from its operation. He thought that, on social matters of this kind, it would be much better if the Government legislated courageously for the two countries on the same basis; and then, if the Irish Members found it necessary to dissent from any part of the measure, they could do so by moving an Amendment. In his opinion, the legislation for the two countries ought to be uniform.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that he should dissent from the view taken by the right hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson), as to the desire that his Bill should be extended to Ireland. He thought that in Ireland people were very well satisfied with their present bankruptcy system; and he should, therefore, protest against the extension of the provisions of this Bill to that country.
    MR. DAWSON: In personal explanation, I have every respect for the legal opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not at liberty to discuss the measure.
    MR. DAWSON: Merely in personal explanation, I wish to say that I have had the authority of the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin that this Bill has met with the approval of the mercantile classes in Ireland.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it was desirable, wherever feasible, that legislation for the three countries should be on the same lines. But in the present case there was already separate legislation for Ireland, Scot-

    987
    land, and England; and as he had no information which led him to believe that the Scotch or Irish were dissatisfied with the present system, he did not feel justified in attempting to impose upon them what might or might not be an improvement. He had, however, since the introduction of the first Bill, which was on the same principle as the Bill just read a second time, received information from the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and several Irish Members on both sides of the House that they would be very glad to have its provisions extended to Ireland. His answer was, if that should turn out to be a general opinion, he thought it a matter in which the principle of Home Rule might apply, and that he did not think the Government would have the slightest objection to extend the Bill to Ireland. But he was afraid, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), there was no such unanimity of feeling as would induce the Government to adopt that course.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked, as a point of Order, whether there would be any difficulty in the way of an hon. Member who wished to move an Instruction to one of the new Committees?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, there could be no doubt that it would be competent for the House to instruct the Committee in the manner suggested by the hon. and gallant Baronet.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures.
    Ordered, That the Committee do sit and proceed on Monday 9th April, at Twelve of the clock.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 116.]
  (Mr. Trevelyan.)
  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES FUND (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 116.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. TREVELYAN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that objections to the Bill had been made by the hon. Members for Water-ford and Dublin; but after a long consultation with those hon. Gentlemen he was able to satisfy them completely on the points they raised. Another hon. Member (Mr. Callan) also objected to
    988
    the measure on precisely similar grounds; but he gave him ample opportunity of proposing his Amendment when the Bill had reached its Committee stage. This measure proposed to do for the North and East of Ireland what the Reproductive Loans Fund and another measure did for the South and West; and he hoped, after the promise he had made, that the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) would now allow the Bill to be read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Trevelyan.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, that his constituents would be amongst those who would derive benefit from this measure; but there were one or two portions of the Bill to which he should object. One was the proposal to place the Fund under the control of the Board of Works. He was afraid that the Board of Works had such an insatiable maw that it would swallow all the money that would be given for the purposes of the Bill. He would accept, however, the assurance given by the Chief Secretary that ample time would be given on the Committee stage of the Bill to consider all its details; and he did not, therefore, propose to prevent its second reading, which he certainly would have done had not the assurance been given.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 5th April.

  BANKRUPTCY (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 82.]
  (Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Baring, Mr. Davey, Mr. Samuel Morley, Mr. Whitley.)
  BANKRUPTCY (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 82.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he rose to move that the Speaker leave the Chair in order that the Bill might go into Committee. He had no desire to proceed further until he saw what became of the Government Bankruptcy Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that this Bill had been read a second time without discussion; but he had not understood that it was the wish of the hon.

    989
    Gentleman to proceed with, it to the Committee stage. He would, therefore, have to oppose the Motion, as it would he inconvenient to have two Bankruptcy Bills in Committee at the same time.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKmerely wished that the Bill should pass into the Committee stage. He did not intend to proceed further with it at present.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he understood that it was the hon. Gentleman's desire to refer the Bill, along with the Government measure, to the Grand Committee.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he was not anxious to refer it to the Grand Committee. It was just possible that the Government Bill might not pass into law; and, in that event, his Bill contained provisions on which there was practically no difference of opinion, and it might be passed. If the Government would consent to this he would postpone his Bill for some weeks. He hoped the Government would allow him to take this step.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he must offer opposition to the hon. Member proceeding further with his Bill at this stage.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 55: Majority 10.—(Div. List, No. 42.)
    Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday 29th March.

  LONDON BROKERS' RELIEF ACT (1870) REPEAL BILL.
  Ordered, That the Order [16th February] that the London Brokers' Relief Act (1870) Repeal Bill be read a second time upon Wednesday 9th Maybe read, and discharged.
  Ordered, That the Bill be withdrawn.
  Leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.

  LONDON BROKERS' RELIEF ACT (1870) REPEAL BILL.

    BROKERS' (CITY OF LONDON) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. RICHARD MARTIN, Bill to relieve the Brokers of the City of London from the necessity of being admitted by the Court of Mayor and Aldermen, and from all payments to the Chamberlain of that City, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RICHARD MARTIN, Mr. MAGNIAC, and Mr. BUXTON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 127.]
    House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock till Thursday 29th March.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Third Reading— Sale of Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) (17), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) [46 Vict. c. 2]; Consolidated Fund, &c. (Permanent Charges Redemption) Act (1873) Amendment [46 Vict. c. 1],

SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
(The Lord Carlingford.)
SALE OF LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.

  (NO. 17.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading Read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Carlingford.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, that he had taken great interest in this question. He found that no compensation was given to publicans under the Forbes-Mackenzie Act for Scotland; but, in England, a six days' licence had been granted—one tenant of his having got one. He had offered to another tenant an abatement of one-seventh of his rent, if he would
  924
  try the plan; but, if he should not lose by it, to continue his present rent. He had, at one time, two licensed houses in the village he inhabited, but had closed one and lowered the rent of the house. No doubt, licensed houses paid a higher rent than private houses, and he believed that Irish landlords, who had been so much blamed, would voluntarily give up a portion of rent if the tenant would lose by Sunday closing; and the Legislature might, as to six days' licences, do as much for Ireland as it had done for England.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWNsaid, that, as a Representative Peer and a Resident Magistrate in Ireland, he desired to make a final protest against that sweeping measure passing their Lordships' House without any alteration whatever being made in the bonâ fide Traveller Clause. It would be extremely hard on respectable publicans in large towns, that their customers should be forced to migrate, once every seven days, to a distance of three miles or more outside the Metropolis, in order to obtain drink; and it would be equally hard on the inhabitants of the suburbs, to be inundated with persons of the class who would leave the towns for that purpose. He spoke, from practical experience, as a magistrate who had had to administer this law ever since it had passed; whereas the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford), who refused to accede to the Amendment he (the Earl of Milltown) moved in Committee, only spoke from hearsay or second-hand information. The matter was not quite so plain as the noble Lord made it out to be. How was it the Committee, which sat in that House on the subject of Intemperance in 1878, reported that the subject was not at all clear, and that disputes regarding it continually arose not only in Ireland, but in this country? He deeply regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not seen their way to accept his humble Amendment, or to have produced a better one of their own; and he could only hope that, during the voyage of this Bill through "another place," and in the full discussion which would there certainly ensue upon it, some means would be found of effectually settling this question.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREasked the Lord President of the Council, If Her Majesty's Government have decided to deal this Session with the question of endowed schools in Ireland, whether those under the Commissioners of Education or otherwise?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reply, said, he wished that he could give a simple answer to his noble Friend by saying that the Irish Government had decided to deal with this question during the present Session; but he was unable to go so far as that. However, he was able to say that the matter was before the Irish Government, and was in their hands at this moment; and although the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having several other subjects of legislation to prepare for the consideration of Parliament during the present Session, was not now in a position to pledge himself to deal with the important question of endowed schools, yet he was very anxious to deal with it, and was not without hope of being able to do so before the close of the present Session.

THE MINISTRY—THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Seeing the noble Lord the President of the Council (Lord Carlingford) in his place in that capacity for the first time, I should like to ask the Government whether the Viceroy of Ireland still remains a Member of the Cabinet?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes; he does.
  House adjourned at half past Four o'clock, to Tuesday the 3rd of April next, a quarter past Four o'clock.